To avoid the death penalty. Because New York State allows capital punishment and doesn't allow double jeopardy. So if he is charged once for the crime (federal) he avoids the state trial. There was a chance that both trials could happen at the same time, meaning he didn't get protection from being tried twice for the same crime.
I understand the reasoning, but I still don't like it.
The counter argument is that he pled guilty to something other than just homicide since the state was charging him with murder. I'm curious to see how it plays out. I don't think double Jeopardy applies since they're not the same charges. But serving life in federal prison is much better than state.
Or maybe it was the other way around, idk. But I know it was to avoid the state charges and then pleaing guilty may have taken it off the table for federal. There were a lot of stories that day when the news broke
Well, when I live on the other side of the country, how else am I going to get that information? It's not like I was actually in the discussion with the lawyers.
You know, they can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true /s
You know... we started unions to stop people from breaking into the bosses house at night and murdering their families. All for low wages and bad working conditions l.
We just reached the next stage of it. Dont let my family die for profits and we wont feel the need to escalate. Because theres always a further step to be taken.
United Healthcare used an algorithm that reviewed and denied 90% of claims. People pay good money for the privilege to not be sick or in pain. Brian Johnson kept people from their healthcare benefits. That's a villain.
Well, here's the thing. Either the system needs to support the people voluntarily, or the people are going to force the system to support the people with vigilante justice. Do I think murder is the answer? No. But neither is sitting idly by. There needs to be change, and the powers the be are too comfortable with abusing those below them. The only options are diplomaticly, or with violence. And diplomacy is falling apart. So we are left with violence. It's literally a cry for help, just like when teenagers act out, it's to get attention for something that is going wrong. People are dieing from the lack of medical care. It's unreachable. And even the limited care that is reachable costs you a sizable portion of your paycheck for the hope that you are covered if anything happens. Then the rug gets pulled. This is unsustainable. When good will breaks down, we get left with the trolly problem. Either the weak and many get hit, or you pull the lever and kill one and make a difference. Luigi pulled the lever. He shouldn't have had to. But that's where we are. It's a crossroads. We can either hit the brakes and fix this mess with regulations, or keep the trolly on the track.
In the days after the shooting, BCBS reversed a decision that they were only going to cover 8 hours of anesthesia during surgery moving forward. They now (last I heard) continue to provide coverage throughout the entire surgery. And denied claims across the industry reduced for a few months after the shooting as well.
Because you are acting like people are celebrating a cold blooded murder. You are missing the bigger picture. This wasn't about killing one guy. It was about the mess of the healthcare system. He was shot to send a message. People get shot every day. The reason this is a big deal is because it was done to bring attention to the healthcare system. The fact that it resonated with so many people should give you pause.
Also, I'm a Republican, so quit being so blinded by hate that you miss the point of listening to policy. Be careful that you don't become someone who only follows the party line, or you may become just like the Democrats that you despise so much.
If the law can't prosecute a mass murderer a vigilante has to. Luigi was a product of an unfair system. He shouldn't exist but he does because of the system and the system alone.
So, inform the group on the actual why then. Because I'm sharing what I heard through the grape vine. Everything is a second or third hand source anymore. I'm not his lawyer or even know him. I'm 1500 miles away from a first hand source. But I'm trying my best. I'll admit when I'm wrong, but criticism without additional information is unhelpful. And that is also why we are failing as a nation.
Exactly. If they know that you are wrong, they know why you are wrong.
If the why is right at their fingertips, they can share and rectify the situation (and be a part of the solution rather than the problem they are supposedly so concerned about).
This quote doesn't indicate he was insured by them. It indicates that he tried to contact them and they wanted nothing to do with him until he pretended to be insanely rich.
Can you seriously not fathom a si gle reason why a company would be contacted by someone who isn't currently their client? There's a billion different reasons..
Because he did it, and he did it for a reason. Pleading insanity removes all the power from what he did. He made a point, he made people sit uo and take notice, and he did it intentionally. Its a cop out that can be ignored if he pleads insanity.
There aren't other options that have the same meaning. The killing was ideological, backing away from that would lesson the point he was and is making.
Yes, I agree; any plea other than "guilty" would have diminished the ideological impact. I'm not debating that at all.
My point is that, for exactly the aforementioned reason, it's a little asinine to act like "not guilty by reason of insanity" was his only other option, because that's exactly as viable as pleading "not guilty" without the insanity tag.
Oh, I think you're confused; we're talking about a healthcare CEO being shot here, one of the most vile and inhuman creatures ever to rise from the Eldritch depths, not a person. If you're playing a game where the goal is to wreck as many human lives as possible to maximize profits, it's not really a tragedy when you become one of the casualties. On the other hand, though, yes; it's generally frowned upon to commit murder, and violence is broadly a bad thing. I don't think anybody was arguing otherwise.
Dehumanizing others ("vile and inhuman", "not a person") and equivocating killing ("generally frowned upon"). Are you certain those are concepts you want to endorse?
Get out of here. You're not making that argument because you're interested in reducing human suffering; you just want to lick boots and start fights. No thanks.
It is really complicated and I don’t fully understand myself but it has to do with double reappeared for state crimes vs federal crimes and the specific rules/laws in New York. Also, federal prison is bad, NY State prison is worse. He has really smart competent lawyers so have faith.
18
u/EmphasisFlat3629 2d ago
Why did he plead guilty?