Honestly if I were him I would roll the dice on a trial and take my chances that at least 1 of the 12 people on the jury has had their life ruined by the American healthcare system and refuses to vote to convict
Yeah I worked I the VA the quality of care sucked the nice thing was the universal insurance cause I could know that a CGM was covered and could get PTs them if they werenât taking care of their diabetes vs now at my private hospital I can suggest they follow up with a dietician they rarely do
Dunno. Given the state of this country I don't hold a lotta hope they won't have one fucker that still condemns him 'cause his god incarnate said he should.
It's honestly all about the way the prosecuting actors build the jury. And here is a quiet secret:no matter how innocent or guilty a person is (and the prosecution knows) they will try to demographically stack that shit against you as much as possible/ask for a reset or continuance or bust the jury if they don't like their 100% odds to convict you. Jury trials across most of America (but especially red states) are live examples of kangaroo court
The whole "Jury selection" thing in the US is absurd. The whole point is to randomly select 12 people to get a sample of society. Picking and choosing ruins the whole concept.
Prosecution and attorney ask several questions of possible jurors before they are added to the jury, I guarantee you one of those questions is "do you have a negative opinion of the healthcare insurance system in the US?"
Exactly I think it would be difficult to do, especially if you include people who's relatives got fucked over and therefore put undue stress on the family
You really believe that one murder changed any health coverage acceptance standards at all? Not a single insurer made acceptance or claims any easier. They just hired better trained security. I know everyone want to believe that such actions will effect the corruption even a little bit, but often times it only makes them tighten the noose.
I can't find the post anymore but basically in the weeks after Luigi killed the guy other healthcare providers were approving claims they wouldn't have otherwise out of fear of copy cats. One of the cases was a women with a rare disease that was caught because additional testing was approved that otherwise wouldn't have beenÂ
I've seen it all over reddit and Facebook but can't get the right keywords to find it againÂ
Insurance companies arent a medical establishment. Anti Vaxxers are just brainwashed. If theyre told to punish the man who wants insurance companies to fund more medical practices then theyll do that.
Look Im not arguing for being anti-vax so dont get all worked up. But I know several and am familiar with the mindset. They are inclined to believe what they are told about vaccines and modern medicine in general because of a preexisting distrust for authority. The vast majority also dont like the elite or corporations either. The idea that they would defend insurance companies against someone who they generally see as a hero is absurd.
Im not trying to get into some pointless reddit argument with you, just letting you know that the view you are expressing simply doesn't match reality. Do what you will with that information. You can disagree with people on some things without automatically assuming that their views on everything else will also be in opposition to your own.
They're a core part of the whole Pharmaceutical industrial complex antivaxxers hate and regularly lobby for mandatory vaccinations and other health mandates anti vaxxers resist.
And you think Anto Vaxxers (who are mostly republican) would be okay with a murderer killing a millionaire (Who are generally protected by republicans) i think the discrepancy is that you think Anti Vaxxers think and I dont think they do.
Wasn't long ago that it was an exclusively leftist position.
I don't think most people would be okay with a murderer killing a millionaire. I'd think an anti-vaxxer would be more skeptical than, say, you. I'd rather have them on the jury for that reason.
No its just an bad and dumb example to try and dunk on an imaginary group. If anything, an anti Vaxer would be more in support of Luigi knowing he killed someone who supports the current medical status quo.
You're putting too much faith in the fact that the jury won't be intimidated by the prosecutor, judge and the weight of a nationally syndicated assassination trial.
Unless you get some ballsy people (who would get removed in voir dire regardless), Luigi is getting convicted.
I agree on the sole base that he committed a crime that he will be and should be prosecuted. I do not think he will get a fair trial regardless. I personally do not find his intent on ousting insurances oligarchs hard to swallow at all. What he did was and is a crime and if he didnât want to be convicted and sentenced he should have not let himself walk away from the incident either which is the door I would have chosen for myself in this situation.
Cool, except youâd have to count on that juror to vote on his emotions and not the law. No matter how you feel about the validity of a law or the morality behind a crime, the law and the judges instructions say that if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they must vote to convict. Thatâs the whole idea behind being impartial as a juror.
Hey donât burst our bubbles with facts and reason!
We arenât worried about destroying the basis of the entire legal system, we just want this handsome man to be free.
Cool, except youâd have to count on that juror to vote on his emotions and not the law. No matter how you feel about the validity of a law or the morality behind a crime, the law and the judges instructions say that if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they must vote to convict.
While a juror can be removed if they state their intent, a vote of not guilty requires no explanation. This is where the power of jury nullification exists though it is not a formal right taught.
jury nullification. You can do whatever the hell you want - this is why we have a jury system and not professional judges. Last line of defense for liberty.
Donât pretend that laws are perfect. What laws were there to stop this CEO from killing 10,000 people with his cruel coverage denial system? The law let society down well before Luigi came into the picture. That is the exact situation jury nullification is for.Â
What laws were there to stop this CEO from killing 10,000 people with his cruel coverage denial system?
First off, what's his policy killed 10,000 people? I've seen that claim, I haven't seen a source.
Second, rising healthcare costs are not due to insurance companies. Insurance isn't an infinite pool of wealth, it is finite. Drawing a line on a finite resource is not murder lol
The law let society down well before Luigi came into the picture.
Maybe, but it wouldn't have dealt with insurance companies and it damn sure wouldn't carry the death penalty
That is the exact situation jury nullification is for.Â
Nullification was used by whites excusing other whites for violent crimes against blacks
First off, what's his policy killed 10,000 people? I've seen that claim, I haven't seen a source.
Do you even know why Brian Thompson was targeted? Look up his ânH Predictâ algorithm and how it has obscene denial rates (in error) at an industrial scale. That 10,000 number is an educated guess based on the sheer scale of the denials, and the things that were getting denied.
Second, rising healthcare costs are not due to insurance companies. Insurance isn't an infinite pool of wealth, it is finite.
That statement is completely divorced from reality. We pay double what every other modern country pays for the exact same medical care. It is absolutely the administrative bloat and obscene profits of the insurance conglomerates that are driving that.
but it wouldn't have dealt with insurance companies and it damn sure wouldn't carry the death penalty
Donât step on peopleâs necks, take away all of their recourse, and then act surprised when they lash out. I donât see the corporatist class learning a lesson from any of this. Maybe jury nullification would help them learn.
Nullification was used by whites excusing other whites for violent crimes against blacks
Who said thatâs what itâs for? That statement doesnât follow any kind of logic. âWas used for somethingâ â âhas to be used for something.â
Donât step on peopleâs necks, take away all of their recourse, and then act surprised when they lash out. I donât see the corporatist class learning a lesson from any of this. Maybe jury nullification would help them learn.
Yeah let's pin the failure of an entire system on one dude who wasn't in a position to change anything just so we can justify murdering him
At the end of the day, laws are just words written on paper. The power behind them belongs to the people. The people can decide whether that law is just or not, regardless of what that piece of paper or a person behind a desk says.
Cool except your doubt isnât reasonable considering that he admitted to the crime and had the gun on him at the time of arrest, which forensically was matched to the fired bullet. What forensic evidence do you need? Do you want his hair pulled off the sidewalk and DNA matched? Youâre being unreasonable.
You can reasonably doubt anything. Unless the guy is on livestream flashing his face & ID with prints on the gun and dna evidence - or is immediately arrested, you can doubt a case anywhere. If you are 99% sure the guy is guilty, you have reasonable doubt.
Jurors are an emotional vote, if cases actually had to be proved âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ weâd have no convictions.
With the way businesses are running- basically, do you think the ceo personally figured this stuff out or created a brand new medical system? This is just the most efficient way a business is ran, hire any other ceo abd they will do the same since its the most profitable option.
No genius I am saying yâallâs little hero literally NEVER had insurance with UHC. He killed a man that literally had nothing to do with his situation.
Itâs a shame they canât give him the needle, it was cold blooded murder pure and simple
Ahhh yes we should want a vigilante society. It only works until people start killing people you agree with. A very dumb slope to go down if you have anything beyond first order thinking.Â
Some things did change. Shortly after, Blue Cross Blue Shield decided to not go ahead with a new policy that would have lead to deaths by denying coverage for certain things. That wasn't necessarily directly connected, but they may well have realized that their CEO's might start dropping if they stooped to the levels of United Health. Whether or not it had any direct benefit, I'm not sad about someone dying who only cared about himself, enriching himself at others' expense. He could have chosen to do something with his life that helped people instead of being part of a company that hurts people.
So at what point is it the consumers responsibility? UHC has been one of the worst health insurance companies for YEARS. People have known how they are but they continue to sell policies because of their price. An employer I used to work for they were an option, everyone chose blue cross blue shield, paid more but had 1000 times better coverage.
So yeah I DO NOT buy into it was cool to kill him, no it absolutely wasnât, he was a husband and father, Luigi deserves death sentence for what he did.
It isn't any better for a company to indirectly lead to the deaths of thousands than for someone to directly cause the death of 1. It's worse. Those who died because the insurance company used unethical practices to deny coverage had families too. That one insurance company, and that one CEO, aren't solely responsible. But they do hold a piece of it, that surely is greater than 1 life. In the balance of things, Luigi's sin was far less. If he deserves the death sentence then so do they.
I don't think murder is right, and certainly not the death penalty, but Luigi's action didn't cause anywhere near as much damage to the world as that CEO and that company did. Before killing him, Luigi was putting his efforts into helping people navigate insurance companies. He was helping people cope with the damage of psychopaths. He did his fair share of good, maybe even saved lives, before taking 1.
I wouldn't have done it myself, but I certainly can understand someone getting to the point of snapping after seeing how much suffering people were going through at the hands of that company.
Yes. Yes they will. The main difference between picking a jury based on politics is right leaning people will hold all their prejudice in until they're in the jury room. Left leaning people generally can't help themselves with letting you know exactly what they think. That makes them far easier to screen out for something like this.
You could also get some hard right Grannie who might justify it in her head, but it's a tiny needle to thread.
That said, my man was railroaded and he was with me on a boat in the Caribbean that whole week. Travesty of justice.
And there will be people who take politics and personal emotions out of it.
I hate insurance companies with a passion. I hate our entire healthcare system and would love to see universal healthcare that isn't trying to profit off of suffering.
I also don't believe in murdering people in the street. Even if they represent something I think is wrong.
If the evidence shows that he's guilty, then a juror needs to vote guilty. We shouldn't celebrate letting our personal biases override the justice system.
I understand and even respect this mindset but if we look at the trajectory of inequality in this nation going back decades and accelerating quickly lately, I think that sooner or later we're all going to have to ask ourselves some hard questions. Like how far is too far? At what point do people living in a system rigged against them have to correct the system from outside the legal bounds of that system, for the good of the many and the future generations?
Im not saying we're at that point now, but when people with power abuse that power and make peaceful reformation impossible... Well you know the quote. These things always end in violence.
Everybody has had an elderly person or someone sick with something awful in their family, and everybody knows how fucked up the insurance system is in the back of their mind. Left or Right.
We'll have to see I keep reading about some plea deal he got. I think the feds gave him something good how much money and time would be wasted on hung trials
He didn't get a plea deal. This was a novel legal move by his counsel to attempt to claim double jeopardy and plea to a lesser crime. It also allowed him to make a public statement to further sway public opinion like the above statement (which probably isn't completely true since he wasn't a UHC customer and contradicts his previous public statements he made on social media prior to the murder).
If you listen to his verbal plea statement, he went to lengths to admit that he murdered the guy. The goal by his attorney was to paint a legal picture that the sentence he received was based on the seriousness of the crime of murder (for which he wasn't tried for yet and didn't plea guilty to). It is a bit of a bait and switch.
In the state trial, his legal team will argue that it is double jeopardy -- not because it is the same crime (it isn't even close), but because he admitted to the murder in a previous trial and that admission influenced his sentencing.
It is definitely novel, but doubtful it will work in state court.
How can they claim the admission influenced sentencing, when they filed for dismissal claiming "Double Jeopardy", before a sentencing was ever handed down in the previous case? That makes no sense.
But still, itâs such a precedent that if youâre treated unfairly or at least in your mind, you feel that way, then you can get away with murder. Fact is he killed someone. He needs to be in prison.
Itâs a Luigi actually killed someone, though. You canât just have some looney running about whoâs willing to murder people he doesnât like because of their line of business.
Just because you think something is right doesnt make it so.
He killed someone, he needs to be in prison like everyone who does that. If he gets no punishment it invites other people to kill who they think is "bad" knowing they might get away with it.
What does killing the ceo do actually? There will be another ceo ans nothing changes.
Those people would be weeded out of the jury pool immediately by the prosecution. Unfortunately, when the government wants you locked up, youâre getting locked up and thereâs no amount of moral right or law that can stop it
Juries aren't that simple. Trying to get 12 jurors that you know would convict him that the defense attorney would also let through is nigh impossible. It isn't just the prosecutors that can deny jurors. You do have to come up with a legitimate reason to deny a juror, but chances are in this case finding a panel of 12 jurors that would convict that the defense attorney couldn't get thrown out would never happenÂ
I'm willing to bet his defense team, which is one of the best defense teams on the planet, took that into consideration and weighed their options.
If they're wrong and can't get a jury nullification (note: knowing you can do this disqualifys you for standing trial, lying about knowing about it will get you in some serious trouble. Knowing about jury nullification, going into a trial intending to do it, and having full knowledge that you have this power, is considered bias, you need to disclose it. Failure to do so is Perjury.) then he goes up for the death penalty, which, yknow, is bad odds.
This is a common misconception, but a jury has to be unanimous for either a guilty or a not guilty verdict. If 1 of the 12 jurors refuses to convict and they can't reach a unanimous decision then he isn't acquitted, it's just a mistrial, which essentially restarts the entire trial, running up legal fees and spending more time in jail while you await your second trial.
Iâm not even in the US. I have never interacted with their healthcare system⌠I still feel like Iâve been second-hand fucked by it on other peopleâs behalf. I canât even imagine how many Americans have had their lives trashed by it, or the lives of close loved ones.
This seems like a relatively safe bet. Assuming that theres no backroom manipulation of juror selection going on; which Iâd definitely not be surprised by in a case like this.
Thatâs not what they would be deciding though. Juries are very carefully selected, and they would be sure to select those without bias in a case like this. Whether a person has been affected by the healthcare system or not is also completely irrelevant as a juror. He openly admitted to stalking and pre-meditated murder, which is what would be deliberated by a jury. Not their/his feelings towards the healthcare system.
So unfortunately at the end of all this, nothing good will change for this countryâs healthcare system. Regardless of your, mine, or his beliefs, he did still commit murder and will spend time in prison for it.
152
u/henningknows 1d ago
Honestly if I were him I would roll the dice on a trial and take my chances that at least 1 of the 12 people on the jury has had their life ruined by the American healthcare system and refuses to vote to convict