Fox News comments are in near-unanimous agreement with Trump.
The only other place I've seen anything so anti-shooter was on Ken Ham's creation-science channel.
Was the Ken Ham anti-shooter stuff about this shooting, or another one?
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Fox News comments are in near-unanimous agreement with Trump.
The only other place I've seen anything so anti-shooter was on Ken Ham's creation-science channel.
Was the Ken Ham anti-shooter stuff about this shooting, or another one?
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
Well, in this one case anyway, they're right--both re the shooter, and also the actions of the insurance industry...
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
Fox News comments are in near-unanimous agreement with Trump.
The only other place I've seen anything so anti-shooter was on Ken Ham's creation-science channel.
Was the Ken Ham anti-shooter stuff about this shooting, or another one?
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
Well, in this one case anyway, they're right--both re the shooter, and also the actions of the insurance industry...
For the record, the people on Ham's channel only seemed to be applying the analysis to the shooter, not the CEOs.
Fox News comments are in near-unanimous agreement with Trump.
The only other place I've seen anything so anti-shooter was on Ken Ham's creation-science channel.
Was the Ken Ham anti-shooter stuff about this shooting, or another one?
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
Well, in this one case anyway, they're right--both re the shooter, and also the actions of the insurance industry...
For the record, the people on Ham's channel only seemed to be applying the analysis to the shooter, not the CEOs.
Once again, the earthly church gives a free pass to the World (in the sense of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil). (So many sermons about how one uses one's naughty bits, so few about financial greed...)
... some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
This sounds to me like a combination of wishful thinking on your part, as you tend to want to think well of people, and projection of modern notions of "justice" onto an extremely distant past about which we know very little.
Fox News comments are in near-unanimous agreement with Trump.
The only other place I've seen anything so anti-shooter was on Ken Ham's creation-science channel.
Was the Ken Ham anti-shooter stuff about this shooting, or another one?
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
Well, in this one case anyway, they're right--both re the shooter, and also the actions of the insurance industry...
For the record, the people on Ham's channel only seemed to be applying the analysis to the shooter, not the CEOs.
Once again, the earthly church gives a free pass to the World (in the sense of the World, the Flesh, and the Devil). (So many sermons about how one uses one's naughty bits, so few about financial greed...)
Actually, I've just been back to Ham's channel, and while the comments do lean anti-shooter, I'd say it's more about 60/40. Quite a number of people are posting "Yes, but..." kinda stuff.
Still relatively anti-shooter, compared to most other places. One thing that some on Ham's site were alleging is that Thompson was not exactly the great family man the media are making him out to be, claiming he had little involvement with his kids. I think this might reflect a conservative bias against separation and divorce, but it's also interesting, given how "What about the family?!" is such a mainstay of narrative-construction around crime victims.
One thing that some on Ham's site were alleging is that Thompson was not exactly the great family man the media are making him out to be, claiming he had little involvement with his kids. I think this might reflect a conservative bias against separation and divorce, but it's also interesting, given how "What about the family?!" is such a mainstay of narrative-construction around crime victims.
Why is this relevant?
It's not somehow a lesser sin to shoot a single man than a loving husband and father. Nor is it a lesser sin to deny healthcare to the single man than to the man with multiple dependents.
One thing that some on Ham's site were alleging is that Thompson was not exactly the great family man the media are making him out to be, claiming he had little involvement with his kids. I think this might reflect a conservative bias against separation and divorce, but it's also interesting, given how "What about the family?!" is such a mainstay of narrative-construction around crime victims.
Why is this relevant?
It's not somehow a lesser sin to shoot a single man than a loving husband and father. Nor is it a lesser sin to deny healthcare to the single man than to the man with multiple dependents.
Well, I, personally, don't think it's very relevant, in the sense that I agree killing a family-man is no worse than killing a bachelor.
But it's such a common trope in anti-crime narratives, it was interesting to see someone pushing back against it, albeit for what I think are the wrong reasons.
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
... some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
This sounds to me like a combination of wishful thinking on your part, as you tend to want to think well of people, and projection of modern notions of "justice" onto an extremely distant past about which we know very little.
I feel awkward trying to debate you.
I’ll say I don’t think that’s what I’m doing, and leave it at that.
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
I’m not saying that every law was just. Indeed, I think I’ve said the opposite several times now. Just that some kind of blah blah blah etc.
I mean, however well enforced it was, and whatever its flaws, the Code of Hammurabi was a collection of laws, and one of its purposes was explicitly “so that the strong should not harm the weak.”
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
I’m not saying that every law was just. Indeed, I think I’ve said the opposite several times now. Just that some kind of blah blah blah etc.
Yeah, but those ideas of justice were not foundational to the systems and institutions that were actually established, which were primarily based on self-interest in the first instance.
That latter point was the one that both me and - I think - @Crœsos had made.
In that context your idealist intervention is largely meaningless, because you could claim it to be true of any system short of the state of nature as long as some behaviour somewhere is sanctioned.
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
Well, of COURSE, I have the right to stop those ruffians from hunting my deer. The Lord God Almighty himself said stealing is a sin!
Now, yes, obviously, he didn't apply the general rule as consistently as he should have, but that's not because he was unaware of it, but because people tend to recognize the application of a moral principle moreso in situations where they benefit from it, eg. the 19th Century American liberal who hated European imperialism probably understood the received moral arguments against rapacious conquest, he just didn't recognize that they should logically apply to his own nation's frontier as well.
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Can any of our legal beagles here explain how someone who is only alleged to have killed one person can be charged with one count of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder?
Is it based on the number of shots he took? Or are they giving the jury(*) a choice of guilty-verdicts to bring in? Or the prosecution will decide which one charge to go ahead with?
(*) Pretty sure this is one case that's gonna be heard by a panel of laymen.
The Washington Post has posted the Indictment. Without knowing more about New York law, all I can say that is there appears to be a "basic" second degree murder count (count 3), a second degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 2), and a first-degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 1). The difference between count 1 and count 2 seems to lie mostly in the requirement that the accused be over the age of 18 (which I assume he is), though there may be some subtle nuance that I'm missing. So basically there is an "ordinary" murder count and two counts of committing murder in connection with terrorism, all in relation to the same victim. The practical difference of being convicted of one count rather than the other probably goes to sentencing.
The Washington Post has posted the Indictment. Without knowing more about New York law, all I can say that is there appears to be a "basic" second degree murder count (count 3), a second degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 2), and a first-degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 1). The difference between count 1 and count 2 seems to lie mostly in the requirement that the accused be over the age of 18 (which I assume he is), though there may be some subtle nuance that I'm missing. So basically there is an "ordinary" murder count and two counts of committing murder in connection with terrorism, all in relation to the same victim. The practical difference of being convicted of one count rather than the other probably goes to sentencing.
So, IOW, he'll be charged with all three, and the jury(assuming they don't acquit him) gets to choose one for the conviction?
What does the existence of a terrible doctrine have to do with, again, some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back?
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
I’m not saying that every law was just. Indeed, I think I’ve said the opposite several times now. Just that some kind of blah blah blah etc.
Yeah, but those ideas of justice were not foundational to the systems and institutions that were actually established, which were primarily based on self-interest in the first instance.
That latter point was the one that both me and - I think - @Crœsos had made.
In that context your idealist intervention is largely meaningless, because you could claim it to be true of any system short of the state of nature as long as some behaviour somewhere is sanctioned.
We seem to be at an impasse. That’s the way it is, I guess. Peace be with you.
The Washington Post has posted the Indictment. Without knowing more about New York law, all I can say that is there appears to be a "basic" second degree murder count (count 3), a second degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 2), and a first-degree murder count with terrorism as an aggravating factor (count 1). The difference between count 1 and count 2 seems to lie mostly in the requirement that the accused be over the age of 18 (which I assume he is), though there may be some subtle nuance that I'm missing. So basically there is an "ordinary" murder count and two counts of committing murder in connection with terrorism, all in relation to the same victim. The practical difference of being convicted of one count rather than the other probably goes to sentencing.
So, IOW, he'll be charged with all three, and the jury(assuming they don't acquit him) gets to choose one for the conviction?
Also...
I wonder to what extent a terrorism conviction is dependent upon showing that the accused had explicitly POLITICAL motivations.
Where I'm going with this is that, read narrowly, Mangione's manifesto, if you can even call it that, is only targeting the behaviour of the insurance companies; it doesn't say anything about politics or government. So could his lawyer use that to try and dodge a terrorism conviction?
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
Perhaps they're admitting that Big Insurance is de facto an arm of the government. Or vice versa.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
I suppose you could argue that
since debates about health-insurance almost always involve government policy, the shooting could be interpreted as a demand for changes to government policy, even if the shooter technically only criticized the behaviour of the companies.
(Though I am inclined to think it's just a case of over-charging.)
As a much noted aside; the Charleston shooter, who intended to start a race war, was not charged with terrorism.
Well, in fairness, prosecutors in New York aren't responsible for how prosecutors in Virginia enforce and interpret the laws of Virginia.
And Virginia law may well be different. As for what the jury does, I would guess offhand that it would return guilty verdicts on as many counts as it regards as proven but sentence is determined by the most serious count.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
And every person on a discussion board has right to say how they feel. You don’t seem to be afraid if doing so. @ChastMastr is breaking no commandments. You could equally just scroll past his comment.
So has the accused appeared in court ye? If not these are just accusations surely.
So has the accused appeared in court ye? If not these are just accusations surely.
That's why when refering to the killing itself, I say "the shooter", and when refering to the person on trial, I say "Luigi Mangioni", or some variation thereof.
So has the accused appeared in court ye? If not these are just accusations surely.
They are criminal indictments, with which he will be formally charged at his arraignment. They remain accusations either until withdrawn, dismissed or passed upon by a jury.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
Re “ You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function,” yes, but I’m not just going to rudely ignore a direct response to me, even if I feel awkward about engaging in any kind of debate with you, so I wanted to acknowledge it and move on.
CBS News just posted a report called "Why the alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO shooter is facing terrorism charges".
The most detailed part of the explanation is that he intended to "sow terror".
One of the comments under that video was someone hoping that "Trump will make things right" by investigating UHC's business practices.
Further confirmation of my long-held theory that a lotta Trump's supporters are living in an alternate-reality where Trump is still a member of the Reform Party and planning to implement populist economic reforms.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
The Indictment is probably just reproducing the wording of the penal code - see the definition of terrorism here:
The key issue is one of intent not effect. So I would guess they’re looking at his writings and drawing inferences about his intention from whatever is there.
My impression is that terrorism charges are being laid with murder charges more often than they used to be. There’s a recent Canadian case involving a murder motivated by Incel ideology where the prosecution sought a finding that the murder was terrorism and the judge made that finding. The article below avoids some graphic details, but still makes for unpleasant reading:
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
The Indictment is probably just reproducing the wording of the penal code - see the definition of terrorism here:
The key issue is one of intent not effect. So I would guess they’re looking at his writings and drawing inferences about his intention from whatever is there.
My impression is that terrorism charges are being laid with murder charges more often than they used to be. There’s a recent Canadian case involving a murder motivated by Incel ideology where the prosecution sought a finding that the murder was terrorism and the judge made that finding. The article below avoids some graphic details, but still makes for unpleasant reading:
Okay, I've scanned the penal code, and based on my reading, I'm gonna assume(as per my question) that its in-house concept of terrorism does, more or less, have as a sine qua non the intention to influence government policy.
As such, I'll go to the point I originally wanted to make, and say that applying it to a case like the CEO shooting, ie. a crime targeted entirely at private actors, is pretty vulnerable to an ad absurdum.
I know the rationale is probably that the killing and its accompanying manifesto can plausibly be interpreted as implied commentary on on what politicians should do about a much-debated government issue. But so can throwing a beer-bottle at the head of someone walking a leashless dog, in a city where leashing-laws are currently the subject of intense debate in politics and the media. And so on and so forth.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
The Indictment is probably just reproducing the wording of the penal code - see the definition of terrorism here:
The key issue is one of intent not effect. So I would guess they’re looking at his writings and drawing inferences about his intention from whatever is there.
My impression is that terrorism charges are being laid with murder charges more often than they used to be. There’s a recent Canadian case involving a murder motivated by Incel ideology where the prosecution sought a finding that the murder was terrorism and the judge made that finding. The article below avoids some graphic details, but still makes for unpleasant reading:
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
The Indictment is probably just reproducing the wording of the penal code - see the definition of terrorism here:
The key issue is one of intent not effect. So I would guess they’re looking at his writings and drawing inferences about his intention from whatever is there.
My impression is that terrorism charges are being laid with murder charges more often than they used to be. There’s a recent Canadian case involving a murder motivated by Incel ideology where the prosecution sought a finding that the murder was terrorism and the judge made that finding. The article below avoids some graphic details, but still makes for unpleasant reading:
Thanks. I don't really have the time or inclination to read that, so if you've read it yourself, would you be able to answer a brief question for me?
(No obligation, of course. This does partly come down to my own sloth.)
I’ve read the article and happy to try to answer any question that I can.
Oh, thanks. But I just wanted to confirm that the NY penal code includes intent to influence government policy(or whatever phrasing) as part of its definition of terrorism.
As you can see, though, I checked it myself and discuss my conclusions in my previous post.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
Perhaps they're admitting that Big Insurance is de facto an arm of the government. Or vice versa.
Surely insurance company executives are part of the civilian population? Whether they are a large enough group to hold up a charge of terrorism might be debatable, but I'd find it easy to see a terrorism charge if, for example, PETA started a program of car bombings against recreational hunters, in order to "dissuade" people from hunting.
One could also make the case that high profile murders of insurance executives were an attempt to draw government attention to the regulation of insurers, I suppose.
You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function.
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
Perhaps they're admitting that Big Insurance is de facto an arm of the government. Or vice versa.
Surely insurance company executives are part of the civilian population? Whether they are a large enough group to hold up a charge of terrorism might be debatable, but I'd find it easy to see a terrorism charge if, for example, PETA started a program of car bombings against recreational hunters, in order to "dissuade" people from hunting.
Well, what if I'm pissed off that my local newspaper won't cancel Ziggy from its comics pages, so I gun down the publisher on the street and hand the cops a note reading "Ziggy sucks shit!!"
Does that qualify as terrorism, because it could terrorize the civilian population of executives working for papers that carry Ziggy? Or would there have to be a larger political movement demanding government action against [/i]Ziggy[/i] to contextualize my crimes with a terroristic import?
And if it's the latter, I will observe that the manifesto as published does not actually contain any criticism of government policy, but only seems directed at the private actions of the insurance companies(*).
(*) Thete IS the rather ambiguous phrase "...the American public has allowed them to get away with it", but it's unclear whether he's refering to the American public as political actors(eg. they won't vote for pro-reform politicians), in which case it would be a political statement, or as consumers(eg. they continue doing business with dodgy companies).
But if it was intended to terrorize the American public, then it has failed spectacularly, because as @Ruth has pointed out, large sections of the public are cheering him on, and I'll observe that even his detractors don't seem worried that they themselves are in danger.
But if it was intended to terrorize the American public, then it has failed spectacularly, because as @Ruth has pointed out, large sections of the public are cheering him on, and I'll observe that even his detractors don't seem worried that they themselves are in danger.
You'd need to ask insurance executives whether they felt terror. I'd guess not - I'd guess that whilst they might exercise prudent caution in the aftermath of this killing, they'd think the risk of either a copycat or a wider program of attacks was minimal.
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Although a King ruling in a context of an existing semi-organised monothesist/henothestic is fairly late in the proceedings - think back to a much earlier tribal leader for more simplified situation.
Sure if you squint very hard you can decide that any kind of cause and effect set of rules constitutes a 'form of justice however imperfect', but this is so universal as to be meaningless.
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Although a King ruling in a context of an existing semi-organised monothesist/henothestic is fairly late in the proceedings - think back to a much earlier tribal leader for more simplified situation.
Sure if you squint very hard you can decide that any kind of cause and effect set of rules constitutes a 'form of justice however imperfect', but this is so universal as to be meaningless.
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Although a King ruling in a context of an existing semi-organised monothesist/henothestic is fairly late in the proceedings - think back to a much earlier tribal leader for more simplified situation.
Sure if you squint very hard you can decide that any kind of cause and effect set of rules constitutes a 'form of justice however imperfect', but this is so universal as to be meaningless.
What does “universal” mean in this context?
It means it can be used equally to describe any regime.
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Although a King ruling in a context of an existing semi-organised monothesist/henothestic is fairly late in the proceedings - think back to a much earlier tribal leader for more simplified situation.
Sure if you squint very hard you can decide that any kind of cause and effect set of rules constitutes a 'form of justice however imperfect', but this is so universal as to be meaningless.
What does “universal” mean in this context?
It means it can be used equally to describe any regime.
How does that make something meaningless? (I saw the reference to “universalist” earlier in the thread, and was sure it didn’t mean “salvation for everyone” but didn’t know how it applied to earthly justice…)
(It also seems to me that some form of justice being in every society isn’t the same as every society or regime having the same amount of justice… every candy bar in the store might have sugar in it, but they’d still have different amounts.)
Comments
About this one. The Brian Thompson shooting. I used "anti-shooter" as my term, because no one is yet convicted of being the shooter.
IIRC, a lot of the commentary on that video was just agreeing with the broad religious principles underlying Ham's condemnation, eg. "Agreed, Ken. The world is full of sin."
Because it's a particularly egregious case instance of the boundaries of "universalism" - with the number of people 'lawfully' excluded by legal system being far greater than those included, and what are we even doing here.
An important principle of actual justice that it's impartial, far easier to ignore if you are society's default demographic, granted.
Well, in this one case anyway, they're right--both re the shooter, and also the actions of the insurance industry...
Sorry, but this doesn't seem to me to change a single thing about what I said, about some attempt at some kind of justice, even if very imperfect, going all the way back. I mean, I'm talking about societies going back all the way through all human history, including ones that practiced things like human sacrifice.
For the record, the people on Ham's channel only seemed to be applying the analysis to the shooter, not the CEOs.
Actually, I've just been back to Ham's channel, and while the comments do lean anti-shooter, I'd say it's more about 60/40. Quite a number of people are posting "Yes, but..." kinda stuff.
Still relatively anti-shooter, compared to most other places. One thing that some on Ham's site were alleging is that Thompson was not exactly the great family man the media are making him out to be, claiming he had little involvement with his kids. I think this might reflect a conservative bias against separation and divorce, but it's also interesting, given how "What about the family?!" is such a mainstay of narrative-construction around crime victims.
Why is this relevant?
It's not somehow a lesser sin to shoot a single man than a loving husband and father. Nor is it a lesser sin to deny healthcare to the single man than to the man with multiple dependents.
Well, I, personally, don't think it's very relevant, in the sense that I agree killing a family-man is no worse than killing a bachelor.
But it's such a common trope in anti-crime narratives, it was interesting to see someone pushing back against it, albeit for what I think are the wrong reasons.
To the closest approximation and as far as we can tell, none of the judicial institutions were actually set up this way. When the King passed a law that made hunting on his land an offence, he wasn't thinking about some abstract notion of justice, he was thinking of protecting *his stuff*. Justice in that case only exists in your mind (and what Ruth said above).
I feel awkward trying to debate you.
I’ll say I don’t think that’s what I’m doing, and leave it at that.
I’m not saying that every law was just. Indeed, I think I’ve said the opposite several times now. Just that some kind of blah blah blah etc.
Here’s the whole text:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp
Yeah, but those ideas of justice were not foundational to the systems and institutions that were actually established, which were primarily based on self-interest in the first instance.
That latter point was the one that both me and - I think - @Crœsos had made.
In that context your idealist intervention is largely meaningless, because you could claim it to be true of any system short of the state of nature as long as some behaviour somewhere is sanctioned.
But wouldn't he at least have been aware that, eg. stealing was forbidden by the 10 Commandments, with the Bible presenting that bit of law-giving as something somewhat more elevated than just the ruling elite protecting their possessions?
Well, of COURSE, I have the right to stop those ruffians from hunting my deer. The Lord God Almighty himself said stealing is a sin!
Now, yes, obviously, he didn't apply the general rule as consistently as he should have, but that's not because he was unaware of it, but because people tend to recognize the application of a moral principle moreso in situations where they benefit from it, eg. the 19th Century American liberal who hated European imperialism probably understood the received moral arguments against rapacious conquest, he just didn't recognize that they should logically apply to his own nation's frontier as well.
(I think we're deep into base/superstructure territory here.)
Can any of our legal beagles here explain how someone who is only alleged to have killed one person can be charged with one count of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder?
Is it based on the number of shots he took? Or are they giving the jury(*) a choice of guilty-verdicts to bring in? Or the prosecution will decide which one charge to go ahead with?
(*) Pretty sure this is one case that's gonna be heard by a panel of laymen.
So, IOW, he'll be charged with all three, and the jury(assuming they don't acquit him) gets to choose one for the conviction?
We seem to be at an impasse. That’s the way it is, I guess. Peace be with you.
Also...
I wonder to what extent a terrorism conviction is dependent upon showing that the accused had explicitly POLITICAL motivations.
Where I'm going with this is that, read narrowly, Mangione's manifesto, if you can even call it that, is only targeting the behaviour of the insurance companies; it doesn't say anything about politics or government. So could his lawyer use that to try and dodge a terrorism conviction?
The terrorism charge sounds like BS to me. According to the NY Times, prosecutors say Mangione
“intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” and to “affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder.” The civilian population cheered, and I have no idea what unit of government they're talking about.
Perhaps they're admitting that Big Insurance is de facto an arm of the government. Or vice versa.
I suppose you could argue that
since debates about health-insurance almost always involve government policy, the shooting could be interpreted as a demand for changes to government policy, even if the shooter technically only criticized the behaviour of the companies.
(Though I am inclined to think it's just a case of over-charging.)
Well, in fairness, prosecutors in New York aren't responsible for how prosecutors in Virginia enforce and interpret the laws of Virginia.
And Virginia law may well be different. As for what the jury does, I would guess offhand that it would return guilty verdicts on as many counts as it regards as proven but sentence is determined by the most serious count.
And every person on a discussion board has right to say how they feel. You don’t seem to be afraid if doing so. @ChastMastr is breaking no commandments. You could equally just scroll past his comment.
So has the accused appeared in court ye? If not these are just accusations surely.
I agree, and find the remove helpful compared to many US options.
That's why when refering to the killing itself, I say "the shooter", and when refering to the person on trial, I say "Luigi Mangioni", or some variation thereof.
The most detailed part of the explanation is that he intended to "sow terror".
Re “ You've said something like this twice now. Every digital device I've seen over the last several decades had a scroll function,” yes, but I’m not just going to rudely ignore a direct response to me, even if I feel awkward about engaging in any kind of debate with you, so I wanted to acknowledge it and move on.
One of the comments under that video was someone hoping that "Trump will make things right" by investigating UHC's business practices.
Further confirmation of my long-held theory that a lotta Trump's supporters are living in an alternate-reality where Trump is still a member of the Reform Party and planning to implement populist economic reforms.
The Indictment is probably just reproducing the wording of the penal code - see the definition of terrorism here:
https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article490.php#p490.05
The key issue is one of intent not effect. So I would guess they’re looking at his writings and drawing inferences about his intention from whatever is there.
My impression is that terrorism charges are being laid with murder charges more often than they used to be. There’s a recent Canadian case involving a murder motivated by Incel ideology where the prosecution sought a finding that the murder was terrorism and the judge made that finding. The article below avoids some graphic details, but still makes for unpleasant reading:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/murder-toronto-spa-man-sentencing-1.7041917
Thanks. I don't really have the time or inclination to read that, so if you've read it yourself, would you be able to answer a brief question for me?
(No obligation, of course. This does partly come down to my own sloth.)
As such, I'll go to the point I originally wanted to make, and say that applying it to a case like the CEO shooting, ie. a crime targeted entirely at private actors, is pretty vulnerable to an ad absurdum.
I know the rationale is probably that the killing and its accompanying manifesto can plausibly be interpreted as implied commentary on on what politicians should do about a much-debated government issue. But so can throwing a beer-bottle at the head of someone walking a leashless dog, in a city where leashing-laws are currently the subject of intense debate in politics and the media. And so on and so forth.
I’ve read the article and happy to try to answer any question that I can.
Oh, thanks. But I just wanted to confirm that the NY penal code includes intent to influence government policy(or whatever phrasing) as part of its definition of terrorism.
As you can see, though, I checked it myself and discuss my conclusions in my previous post.
Surely insurance company executives are part of the civilian population? Whether they are a large enough group to hold up a charge of terrorism might be debatable, but I'd find it easy to see a terrorism charge if, for example, PETA started a program of car bombings against recreational hunters, in order to "dissuade" people from hunting.
One could also make the case that high profile murders of insurance executives were an attempt to draw government attention to the regulation of insurers, I suppose.
Well, what if I'm pissed off that my local newspaper won't cancel Ziggy from its comics pages, so I gun down the publisher on the street and hand the cops a note reading "Ziggy sucks shit!!"
Does that qualify as terrorism, because it could terrorize the civilian population of executives working for papers that carry Ziggy? Or would there have to be a larger political movement demanding government action against [/i]Ziggy[/i] to contextualize my crimes with a terroristic import?
And if it's the latter, I will observe that the manifesto as published does not actually contain any criticism of government policy, but only seems directed at the private actions of the insurance companies(*).
(*) Thete IS the rather ambiguous phrase "...the American public has allowed them to get away with it", but it's unclear whether he's refering to the American public as political actors(eg. they won't vote for pro-reform politicians), in which case it would be a political statement, or as consumers(eg. they continue doing business with dodgy companies).
But if it was intended to terrorize the American public, then it has failed spectacularly, because as @Ruth has pointed out, large sections of the public are cheering him on, and I'll observe that even his detractors don't seem worried that they themselves are in danger.
You'd need to ask insurance executives whether they felt terror. I'd guess not - I'd guess that whilst they might exercise prudent caution in the aftermath of this killing, they'd think the risk of either a copycat or a wider program of attacks was minimal.
Although a King ruling in a context of an existing semi-organised monothesist/henothestic is fairly late in the proceedings - think back to a much earlier tribal leader for more simplified situation.
Sure if you squint very hard you can decide that any kind of cause and effect set of rules constitutes a 'form of justice however imperfect', but this is so universal as to be meaningless.
What does “universal” mean in this context?
It means it can be used equally to describe any regime.
How does that make something meaningless? (I saw the reference to “universalist” earlier in the thread, and was sure it didn’t mean “salvation for everyone” but didn’t know how it applied to earthly justice…)