This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Or something
The ceo was a bad dude,
But murdering people isn’t cool.
Trump said he could murder a guy on Fifth Avenue,
Maybe this guy can murder a guy on Sixth Avenue.
🤷♂️
Removed by mod
Nope
I don’t want him prosecuted, but not because I think killing people is good or forgivable (though it couldn’t really happen to a better person lol) but because the criminal justice system is awful, especially in the US.
If the death penalty is on the table, then I don’t think I need to explain why that’s bad, but I fundamentally disagree with imprisonment. I’m no expert, but there are better ways to handle harm and justice, and I feel the current system is unjustifiably evil in it’s treatment of convicts.
From an ethical perspective, killing is often justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond aversely to death, but that reaction is based in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.
It is in some cases justifiable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the only option in the majority of cases where people might jump to it if given the chance.
I don’t really agree we’ve been trained to respond that way, when I quite often see the exact opposite. Killing is a fast and easy solution that many people are quick to advocate for. I’m quite steadfast in my belief that being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us, to be better than the cruelty of nature.
I don’t agree that breaking the social contract means death is appropriate, justifiable or even necessarily to be celebrated, but it does mean we can seek to undo that injustice and reduce the harm by other forceful methods. Acting in vengeance is not justifiable.
Let me clarify my view on this whole thing: Someone has died and I’m sad about that as an objective fact. I don’t expect this death will lead to anything good, it doesn’t remove the exploitative structure and so won’t lead to any better outcomes for any of the exploited. The only relatively tiny positive is that now that one specific person can’t profit from that exploitation, but now someone else will take that place instead. Nothing worthwhile has come of this.
Killing is a fast and easy solution… being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us
Sure.
We are all animals (some more than others). And we have learned the hard way that to instantiate more of the transcendental values that humans occasionally exhibit as rational creatures — to bring more courage, wisdom, and meaning into this world — we should preserve life whenever possible. But there’s nothing fundamentally sacred about life… We kill all the time. Literally non-stop. Billions of animals, just like us, sentient and desperate to live, butchered for your use and pleasure. So unless you’re a vegan, you do not get to discuss “the sanctity of life.” It’s stupid.
I am vegan, and that’s exactly the reason why.
I think it’s quite simply the case that we should make the choice to try and make life as uncruel as possible. It’s not really about the sanctity of life, I don’t believe in that. I just think we can literally choose to be better, so why shouldn’t we? That’s what I believe and I understand that many people won’t agree with me.
Also hey, I’m just having a discussion here, we’re all friends. There’s no need to be mean and say I’m talking gibberish.
Well, you have my respect! I’m willing to have my mind changed. Why don’t you think we should kill evil people? I don’t get it.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely an idealist and I acknowledge that.
Let me be clear, I specifically think we shouldn’t immediately jump to killing as the first choice. If killing an evil person is going to lead to actual good outcomes, and is seemingly the best/most viable option, I’m not necessarily against it even if I don’t care for it. Violence is a tool we can use, but I prefer to limit it where possible.
Reform would be great if possible, it likely may not be. I think taking away the ability to do harm is probably the best place to start, imprisonment is certainly an option there but it’s not the only one (and doesn’t need to look like the current prison systems we have). If killing leads to a good outcome, and it’s not possible to do anything less (for example we don’t have the power to just round up all the billionaires and corrupt politicians to do these things), then it’s justifiable.
Once approaching justice after the harm has been stopped, one also needs to consider how victims feel and what they’re going to need to try and reduce the impact of the harm they’ve suffered. I’m no expert on any of this and I don’t pretend to be, but I know there are better ways than the current judicial systems. In all honesty I think it’s a case by case kind of thing. The Leftist Cooks have a great video about it that I more or less vibe with. (It is quite long though)
My main concern with this whole affair, is that it hasn’t changed any power structures, people will still be exploited. I want to see structural change, not just blind revenge.
As you slightly edited your question, I’ll just address that specifically. In stopping evil, I think it’s important that we don’t become evil. Killing purely for revenge is something I consider an evil act, that said I’m not one to judge for it, I think it’s extremely understandable. I’m as human as anyone else and I’ve certainly had my fair share of revenge fantasies.
There’s probably also a whole conversation we could have around the fact that killing can ruin someone’s life just in terms of the mental impact, and plenty of other similar arguments.
Thanks for the reply. This is a genuinely tricky question, because most of us acknowledge that revenge under some circumstances isn’t just permissible but desirable, yet the devil is in the details. Consider revenge
- For practical reasons such as a deterrent to future transgressors. Or
- To ameliorate some tiny fraction of the hurt inflicted by the transgressor.
For instance, it would be devastating to lose a loved one, but it would hurt even more if those who killed her were out there enjoying themselves consequence free.
If they ever set up a GoFundMe to set up a memorial statue of the killer, just give a shout.
I mean… If not for the fact that a felon is about to become President again, I would want some form of justice in the law for the assassin. A slap on the wrist, maybe. A few years in jail; definitely not life or a death sentence.
But that’s just to enforce the rule of law to not embolden others to commit such crimes, even if they could easily be justified. Since that’s not being enforced with an even bigger threat to the rule of law, fuck it. Shit doesn’t matter anymore anyway.
If not for the fact that a felon is about to become President again, I would want some form of justice in the law for the assassin.
Maybe we should run him in 2028. I think it would be a landslide.
“Deny, Defend, Depose 2028!”
Id like to see trump face ramifications before this guy.
No.
I want to see him emulated.
This is justice. Not the legal system that says it’s okay for the government to kill brown children halfway across the world, that exploiting and manipulating millions to their early death is just smart business, that you can sell kids to prisons to and get out in 9 years but be black with weed on you and it’s life, that upholds police brutality, etc.
There is a class war going on, and this is the first person to fight on our side in decades.
This is justice.
How? His victims get nothing; his money goes to his family now. The chances of Thompson actually paying for the damages he caused went from nearly zero to literally zero.
While I feel no sympathy for his death, I don’t think that there’s any justice in this. His rich family just got a little bit richer (or will, once his estate is processed). And now United gets to negotiate a new, lower pay plan for a replacement CEO, so they get to pocket even more money going forward. The people who came out ahead in this are not those victimized by Thompson’s company, but those directly in his circle.
It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.
It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.
Do you believe it’d have ever come? Even if he was prosecuted for anything his victims weren’t gonna get a cent.
It was justice because he can no longer harm others.
There was zero chance he was ever going to pay for shit before, so nothing has changed after.
Likewise his assets can still be seized after death, but like previously mentioned it was never going to happen, so it’s irrelevant.
Justice could have been greater, forcing him to spend his life in restitution. This is an acceptable (and actually likely to happen) form of it.
It was justice because he can no longer harm others.
Sure but he, alone, was not the one who harmed his patients. Realistically, he’s probably never even seen a patient’s file and likely couldn’t identify one if you asked him to. While he was the CEO and officially signs off on what the company does, the company is much more than just him. He will be replaced, and easily; likely before next week is even over. And everybody who enabled him and followed him and carried out his orders will continue to conduct the company as they have before.
IMO, justice for victims involves a positive effect; either through policy reform, repayments, etc. The victims aren’t suddenly going to get their claims approved now; they’re in the same situation today as they were yesterday. This is a wholly lateral move for them.
Claim denials went up something like 17% under his 3 year tenure. He absolutely personally had blood on his hands.
What you say makes sense but when people can see that there are decades of precedent for what you describe literally never happening it becomes much more understandable that people start to conflate vigilantism and murder with justice.
If the system consistently fails to provide consequences for an elite class at the expense of an entire generation what options are left? If you fail to stop a child from poking a dog you can’t really blame the dog for biting the child; you fucked up by failing to provide consequences at any point before the situation blew up.
It sounds rough to say, but I genuinely think this is part of a new American revolution, the people have had enough. It shows, I’m not saying we should go out and kill execs, but I am saying I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that happens.
Let me ask counter OP, say a full out rebellion occurred against the corporate oligarch class, ten years from now we have had a bloody and violent change from people who felt they had no other recourse. It was unpleasant but now we are in a society where the general public is much better off and it was generally remembered as a “war on corporate corruption” and the rich are much less willing to tread on their fellow man
In this pretend scenario the killers are now labeled freedom fighters, and public opinion is that it was a necessary overthrow of an unjust system. How would you realistically feel about the man now? I believe it’s all about societal context, and and the line between justice and a slaying does tend to blur after a certain, very extreme point has been crossed.
Now In reality, has that point been crossed yet? I don’t know, that’s yet to be determined, but I feel we will know sooner or later
It’s not even a hypothetical.
In the past workers used to kidnap and kill CEOs, we ended up with worker rights and a higher standard of living.
That stopped, and things slipped away.
Hopefully it’s starting again.
That’s a disgusting attitude. No one should be murdered because people don’t like their profession.
How would you like it if someone murdered you because they didn’t like your job?
He deserved to die and he deserved worse.
If my job is murdering millions I would love for you to take up arms against me.
Nobody is being murdered for their profession. Choices are what people have a problem with. Choose to exploit the masses for the shareholders long enough and someone is going to pop off.
No one was exploited. And yes, you’re condemning him for his profession. Would you say the same thing if he were a manager at McDonald’s?
That’s not true.
A McDonald’s manager didn’t condemn my aunt and my grandmother to death in the name of profits.
Neither did he.
No one? What if your profession is being a guard at Auschwitz? Is it “disgusting” to say that the SS deservered to die based on their profession?
Mob rule isn’t justice. That’s just how you end up with gangs & terrorists being the one who lead and consequently get bombed. You terrorist cock sucking simps can’t be this dense to not understand that the rule of law cannot work selectively? If you despise those people this much, why then think acting about as bad as them is going to do you any favors? But sure, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. If you think this is a war, go out there and fight, soldier! Show the world how much of a badass freedom fighter you are! Or are you just some keyboard warrior out here to instigate others?
The rule of law already works selectively, we’d just prefer it works selectively for us instead of them.
This is one of those cases just begging for Jury Nullification.
No, I think he should escape into myth. I hope that he had a planned exit strategy for the end of this, and that he manages to flee the U.S. If he is caught, I believe he will be made an example, a metaphorical head on a pike to scare people off.
or face
unforseen consequences.FTFY
Jury selection question to weed out biased jurors: “Have you ever had a claim that was unfairly denied?”
Weeks later: “We have been unable to find enough jurors to try the case.”
Absolutely NOT LOL
I’ve already received a ban on LW and this community is on LW so I’ll point out that more communities should move away from LW
No. He did the right thing.
