this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
426 points (93.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36196 readers
1378 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 258 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

If he gets caught, then I'd say yes. Murder should be treated as murder regardless of what the reason is. Making exceptions is never a good idea.

I just hope he doesn't get caught.

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 179 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Then all of the healthcare companies that allow people to die because they will not cover them need to be prosecuted, every executive, every decision maker.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 101 points 3 weeks ago

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 46 points 3 weeks ago

Trinity: what is he doing?

Morpheus: he's beginning to believe..

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

CS Lewis - Screwtape Letters (preface)

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Population Health needs a regulated definition.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'll take that trade

[–] TerkErJerbs@lemm.ee 109 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Brian Thompson and his co-workers murder hundreds of thousands of people with systemic neglect, spreadsheets, and lawyers. They murder in broad daylight, during business hours. And yet they're comfortable, well paid, successful people who will never see a day in jail. What they're doing isn't even considered a crime.

I hope he doesn't get caught, also. Because the same laws that protect those fucking ghouls will crush him for bringing attention to the grift.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Like I said, making exceptions is always a bad idea. It's how these fuck heads even get away with it. But at the same time I can't agree with exceptions even if I agree with the reason behind it.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The point is that there are already exceptions.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Which is bad, and needs attention.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago

This IS the attention.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

Like, all of humanity in the US?

they’re comfortable, well paid, successful people who will never see a day in jail.

They also run the risk of getting assassinated by the people who they have exploited, so we'll see how comfortable they remain in the future.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 44 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Making exceptions is never a good idea.

Why not? The whole reason we have judicial discretion is that every crime departs from the platonic ideal in one way or another.

The working class has been losing a class war for decades without ever properly noticing that it was happening. Working Americans have been dying in that war, and now someone struck back.

I'll be sold on the "no exceptions" ideal when we haul in the corporate murderers alongside the people who fought back.

Jury nullification is the other acceptable option.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's kinda my point. The system is fucked beyond repair specifically because these people running the companies get exceptions. These people have basically let thousands of people die for the sake of money. So like I said before, murder is murder and should be treated as such.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

Given the perspective you described, I would consider the actions of the company to be systematic mass murder who the legal system fails to stop, and the actions of the shooter to be community defense against a mass murderer. They're certainly not equivalent, and I don't see what the benefit is of treating that defense equally to even one callous for-profit murder.

The problem isn't that exceptions are made and therefore all crimes should be treated in an ignorant vacuum. The problem is that the idealist legal system doesn't even consider indirect suffering as the violence it is, because the legal system is ultimately beholden to the power of capital (money buys politicians and the media power to make them win, politicians write laws).

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 weeks ago

I'm confident that someone will get caught and be made into an example.

Whether they were the one that actually did it is immaterial.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

2 or so years ago I'd have agreed with you.

But it's become clear that the wealthy and powerful are beyond the reach of our justice system. coughdementedfeloninthewhitehousecough

So fuck 'em.

I understand why they will prosecute him if they catch him, but I wish for him to never get caught, and I feel really confident (given the other signs of planning) that the phone, water bottle, and very public appearance at Starbucks in recognizable clothing are nothing but a red herring.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Sounded like self-defense to me.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I just hope he doesn’t get caught.

he will get caught. they already have his photo, he is not professional hitman, he can only evade for so long when there is the whole country’s law enforcement after him.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Except the photo they have of him with his face visible isn't even the same guy. Doesn't even have the same clothes or backpack. So unless this dude is proficient at changing his clothes and ditching a backpack all while riding an electric scooter down the street in New York, then they have the wrong guy in that photo.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

wtf are you talking about? they have multiple photos and it is obviously the same person

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The multiple photos with a face showing, has a different coat, hood, and backpack. Go look again.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure thing:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/29120957

The hoods don’t even match. And the backpacks are different too, one had light gray straps, the other is black. And basically 50% of NYC dudes carry black backpacks.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 0 points 2 weeks ago

you do understand that these photos are from different place and different time, right?

the black backpack seems more like some shoulder duffel bag to me i assume it is from the hostel checkin. people don't travel around the city with the same luggage they used for inter-city travel.

people also can have different clothes for different occasion, like putting on some light rain or wind-proof jacket. it can also be shitty compression from some shitty camera.

it is the same person ffs, look at his face, that nose could have passport of its own.

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

I hear and understand your point, and I can't say that I disagree with it.

That being said, I sure as hell wouldn't convict the guy.