• User-uploading of files is now fully enabled!! Check out our full announcement for details.

    All accounts with 0 posts on them have been purged. If you are coming back to us after a long time and you find you can't log in, then that would probably be why.

Theory: LEOs Don't Want to Find the UnitedHealthcare CEO's Assassin

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
6,429
I've seen a news story talk about how, wow, the assassin must be, like, so talented to escape a manhunt in the surveillance state that is the modern US, but honestly, man... I think the police just don't want to find whoever the assassin is. I mean, I certainly wouldn't, for multiple reasons. Ultimately, all this is just me wildly speculating, but it is surprising that I haven't heard anyone mention this theory though so far.

It's also rather heartwarming though that this has, by and large, brought people together in unity against insurance companies and C-suite executives in mutual fucking hatred. :)
 
It won't last much longer though, the mutual hatred. Remember Occupy Wallstreet. The powers that be don't want people united.
 
By the way, here's the full video of the shooting.


The gun jammed, probably due to the silencer attached. Didn't really matter though. The job was done regardless. I have to say though, what the hell was this recorded on? A phone from 2004?
 
He didn't seem to hesitate at all between the each shot and racking the slide. It seemed like he expected the gun to not cycle properly, and that this was a practiced maneuver. I doubt it was inexperience or a "jam" in the standard sense.

There are "bolt-action" pistols with integrated suppressors, such as the B&T VP9 "Welrod"
 
I've seen a news story talk about how, wow, the assassin must be, like, so talented to escape a manhunt in the surveillance state that is the modern US, but honestly, man... I think the police just don't want to find whoever the assassin is. I mean, I certainly wouldn't, for multiple reasons. Ultimately, all this is just me wildly speculating, but it is surprising that I haven't heard anyone mention this theory though so far.

It's also rather heartwarming though that this has, by and large, brought people together in unity against insurance companies and C-suite executives in mutual fucking hatred. :)
 
Ladies and Gentlemen: They got him.
 
Is this trying to say it's conspiracy theory and the guy they got isn't him? IDK, story completely checks out in my mind.

It massively looks like either sheer incompetence from the police or a setup. Maybe both. Who knows.

In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't think there's a single jury out there that will find him guilty, regardless of any evidence, legitimate or otherwise, shown.
 
I have a bad feeling we are going to see it "gaming's fault", and throw in I don't know Death Note just because. What do you guys think are going to be blamed for this?
 
What do you guys think are going to be blamed for this?
It definitely won't be th jews who run the health care industry that's for sure.

Does anyone actually give a fuck some rich asshole, who made a living denying people coverage died? I sure don't. I mean, sure. It's sad bc he had kids and a wife but beyond that fuck him. For profit health care is so fucked up and disgusting.

Remember when the sackler family got an entire nation hooked on addictive prescription painkillers, fabricated evidence they weren't addictive, and gave doctors hefty bonuses for prescribing them, then made fun of pillbillies in their private email? None of them saw the inside of a jail cell. Btw, can you guess the ethnicity of the sacklers?

Aside from that, it's hilarious how incompetent police, especially with all the diversity hires in NY are. Had this not been some faggot billionaire no one would have ever found him and probably never looked.
 
It massively looks like either sheer incompetence from the police or a setup. Maybe both. Who knows.

In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't think there's a single jury out there that will find him guilty, regardless of any evidence, legitimate or otherwise, shown.
Which is terrible, really. It was murder, and it wasn't justified. We just watched the jury for Daniel Penny deliberate for 3 days on what should have been a clear self defense case, and luckily, he got off. But it seems like people are more ready to put up a statue of Luigi rather than Daniel for their heroic acts.
 
Which is terrible, really. It was murder, and it wasn't justified. We just watched the jury for Daniel Penny deliberate for 3 days on what should have been a clear self defense case, and luckily, he got off. But it seems like people are more ready to put up a statue of Luigi rather than Daniel for their heroic acts.

Those are two different things though. Also, what makes you think the murder wasn't justified?
 
Those are two different things though. Also, what makes you think the murder wasn't justified?
Murder is never justified. You can kill in self defense, but that's not murder. You can understand a murder's motivations, but that doesn't make it justified.
 
Murder is never justified. You can kill in self defense, but that's not murder. You can understand a murder's motivations, but that doesn't make it justified.

Ok, so I'm assuming you don't believe in the death penalty, right?
 
Ok, so I'm assuming you don't believe in the death penalty, right?
Death penalty is not murder. I hope you're not conflating criminals that are so dangerous they can't exist in society with someone that is running a company. A company that every customer has an option to not engage with and find an alternative.
 
Death penalty is not murder.

Depends heavily on how you look at it. Some would argue it's merely state-sanctioned murder. I personally wouldn't be so dramatic, but all the same, objective definitions are important here.

I hope you're not conflating criminals that are so dangerous they can't exist in society with someone that is running a company.

Once again, this heavily depends on how you look at it. Killing is making a choice to use your own power or the power of someone else to forcibly deprive another person of life. So what's the significant difference here where one murderer uses a gun to kill someone and another uses paperwork? Should someone who kills an innocent person face to face in the heat of their passion get a harsher sentence than one who coldly denies life-saving treatments for more profit?

You know what, let's make this even easier for you and remove any possibility that insurance is denying anyone life-saving treatment. Kidnapping and torturing an innocent person with intense excruciating pain and possibly physical debilitating them in a permanent way of some kind would ethically merit at very least a long prison sentence, if not the death penalty. Should, then, an insurance CEO who denies and/or delays treatment to hundreds of thousands of people that could save them from intense physical pain and possible permanent physical debilitation not be given the same sentence?

A company that every customer has an option to not engage with and find an alternative.

And what alternative is that? Very, very often, people are stuck with the insurance they have. And appealing? Maybe you might get lucky. And you can't go to court without wading through years of bullshit court proceedings and paying thousands of dollars in legal fees to compete against lawyers funded by one of the biggest companies in the world. Or maybe the insurance company will pay but it's not nearly enough for you to afford the treatment still.
 
Back
Top