-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson assassinated
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
"Am I wrong your honour?"
*takes off shirt and starts flexing*
The Pleasure
Member
You can't fault him for mastering his Bankai.
P:axMagellanic
Member
Handsome bastard. 
They're gonna have to stack the jury with CEO's to get a conviction lol.
They're gonna have to stack the jury with CEO's to get a conviction lol.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Can Biden pardon this guy?
Meicyn
Gold Member
diffusionx
Gold Member
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Pegasus Actual
Member
2nd degree? I mean I just may be an old country chicken but seems pretty clear 1st degree surely?
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
The first degree murder law in the state of NY is kinda weird and different from other states. They have certain stipulations like needs to meet certain criteria like killing a law enforcement officer or torture or terrorism. Second degree murder in NY is what first degree is in most states. And you can get life in prison as a maximum penalty.2nd degree? I mean I just may be an old country chicken but seems pretty clear 1st degree surely?
Most states first degree murder is malice aforethought/premeditation. In NY that's basically second degree if it doesn't mean the specific circumstances.
Last edited:
In New York state, premeditated, cold blooded killing alone isn't sufficient for first degree murder. Has to be targeted toward certain types of individuals like a police officer or judge or child, or was done during another felony, etc.2nd degree? I mean I just may be an old country chicken but seems pretty clear 1st degree surely?
NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov
SECTION 125.27
Murder in the first degree
Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE H, ARTICLE 125
§ 125.27 Murder in the first degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person; and
(a) Either:
(i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of
the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended
victim was a police officer; or
(ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a
of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or
sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the
criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the
course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or
reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such a
uniformed court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee
of the division for youth; or
(ii-a) the intended victim was a firefighter, emergency medical
technician, ambulance driver, paramedic, physician or registered nurse
involved in a first response team, or any other individual who, in the
course of official duties, performs emergency response activities and
was engaged in such activities at the time of killing and the defendant
knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such
firefighter, emergency medical technician, ambulance driver, paramedic,
physician or registered nurse; or
(iii) the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or was an employee of a local correctional facility as
defined in subdivision two of section forty of the correction law, who
was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his
official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known
that the intended victim was an employee of a state correctional
institution or a local correctional facility; or
(iv) at the time of the commission of the killing, the defendant was
confined in a state correctional institution or was otherwise in custody
upon a sentence for the term of his natural life, or upon a sentence
commuted to one of natural life, or upon a sentence for an indeterminate
term the minimum of which was at least fifteen years and the maximum of
which was natural life, or at the time of the commission of the killing,
the defendant had escaped from such confinement or custody while serving
such a sentence and had not yet been returned to such confinement or
custody; or
(v) the intended victim was a witness to a crime committed on a prior
occasion and the death was caused for the purpose of preventing the
intended victim's testimony in any criminal action or proceeding whether
or not such action or proceeding had been commenced, or the intended
victim had previously testified in a criminal action or proceeding and
the killing was committed for the purpose of exacting retribution for
such prior testimony, or the intended victim was an immediate family
member of a witness to a crime committed on a prior occasion and the
killing was committed for the purpose of preventing or influencing the
testimony of such witness, or the intended victim was an immediate
family member of a witness who had previously testified in a criminal
action or proceeding and the killing was committed for the purpose of
exacting retribution upon such witness for such prior testimony. As used
in this subparagraph "immediate family member" means a husband, wife,
father, mother, daughter, son, brother, sister, stepparent, grandparent,
stepchild or grandchild; or
(vi) the defendant committed the killing or procured commission of the
killing pursuant to an agreement with a person other than the intended
victim to commit the same for the receipt, or in expectation of the
receipt, of anything of pecuniary value from a party to the agreement or
from a person other than the intended victim acting at the direction of
a party to such agreement; or
(vii) the victim was killed while the defendant was in the course of
committing or attempting to commit and in furtherance of robbery,
burglary in the first degree or second degree, kidnapping in the first
degree, arson in the first degree or second degree, rape in the first
degree, a crime formerly defined in section 130.50 of this title, sexual
abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree
or escape in the first degree, or in the course of and furtherance of
immediate flight after committing or attempting to commit any such crime
or in the course of and furtherance of immediate flight after attempting
to commit the crime of murder in the second degree; provided however,
the victim is not a participant in one of the aforementioned crimes and,
provided further that, unless the defendant's criminal liability under
this subparagraph is based upon the defendant having commanded another
person to cause the death of the victim or intended victim pursuant to
section 20.00 of this chapter, this subparagraph shall not apply where
the defendant's criminal liability is based upon the conduct of another
pursuant to section 20.00 of this chapter; or
(viii) as part of the same criminal transaction, the defendant, with
intent to cause serious physical injury to or the death of an additional
person or persons, causes the death of an additional person or persons;
provided, however, the victim is not a participant in the criminal
transaction; or
(ix) prior to committing the killing, the defendant had been convicted
of murder as defined in this section or section 125.25 of this article,
or had been convicted in another jurisdiction of an offense which, if
committed in this state, would constitute a violation of either of such
sections; or
(x) the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner
pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting
torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this
subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of
extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the
infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing
debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of
pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or
(xi) the defendant intentionally caused the death of two or more
additional persons within the state in separate criminal transactions
within a period of twenty-four months when committed in a similar
fashion or pursuant to a common scheme or plan; or
(xii) the intended victim was a judge as defined in subdivision
twenty-three of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law and the
defendant killed such victim because such victim was, at the time of the
killing, a judge; or
(xiii) the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism, as
defined in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section 490.05 of this
chapter; and
(b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the
commission of the crime.
2. In any prosecution under subdivision one, it is an affirmative
defense that:
(a) (i) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime except murder in the
second degree. (ii) It shall not be a "reasonable explanation or excuse"
pursuant to subparagraph (i) of this paragraph when the defendant's
conduct resulted from the discovery, knowledge or disclosure of the
victim's sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, gender
expression or sex assigned at birth; or
(b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second
degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree.
Murder in the first degree is a class A-I felony.
Pegasus Actual
Member
Interesting... but doesn't seem too hard of an argument to call it terrorism either.
Can't risk letting him off by reaching unnecessarily for first degree charges when second degree is sufficient.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Hard to say right now, just my personal opinion, it would probably be a hefty mandatory sentence if they did offer that. Like 40-50+ years. I think they're going to want to deter crimes like this from happening in the future. But I don't know that they would offer a plea. You never know what's going on behind the scenes, but they probably have a rock solid case. They have the manifesto, I'm sure they've linked him to plenty of evidence and are doing ballistics as we speak to match what was found at the crime scene and all the other evidence. If they have a really strong case, they might want to take this to trial and push for the maximum penalty to make an example out of him. And if there was the thought of a plea for a lesser sentence, they'd consult with the family first. I think it goes to trial unless the prosecution is like ok this case has a chance to get really crazy with the politics of it all, if he accepts 50 years, he won't be out until he's in his 70's and we avoid the circus of a political trial. But even if it got to that point, his side would have to accept and who knows if they would.
Toons
Member
The fact that this dude was a rich kid with a silver spoon in his mouth and is being hailed as a hero to the working class is peak America
So many are wayward and lost.
As for me, I think he could have done a lot more for marginalized ppl if he used those resources he was granted by his welsthy family towards that.
So many are wayward and lost.
As for me, I think he could have done a lot more for marginalized ppl if he used those resources he was granted by his welsthy family towards that.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Honestly, now that I think about it, if anything, I think Luigi’s attorney would be the one to push for a plea deal unless his client is so far off his rocker that he thinks he’s innocent. They probably have him dead to rights. Wouldn’t be shocked if they’re the ones who made the case that he has no violent history who just lost his way but he’s a good kid and tried to push for like 30 years or something. But otherwise, I think this goes to trial.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
He comes across to me like a typical all over the place zoomer who thinks really highly of themselves in most of what he posted. But there's also something about it all that screams "this guy is lonely" to me. Can't quite put my finger on what/why.
Although much of Twitter kind of gives me that feeling. It's mostly people posting their philosophies and thoughts for minimal engagement.
Pegasus Actual
Member
Hey wait a second that's my GAF life.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I know it seems backwards but the more conversational online places seem less lame to me. Don't get me wrong, we are all very lame nerds for posting here, but at least we aren't posting our philosophy to the world and not at all looking for a conversation about it.
Maybe some truth to that, since he thought highly enough of himself to decide who deserved death, and to diagnose all the problems and solutions for American society and Japan’s, despite just being some kid who worked at a tech startup. He is intelligent though.
Somewhere along the way disillusionment exceeded sense. Can’t be reading something like Ted K’s book if you’re in a vulnerable psychological state.
Kraz
Member
He mightn't have had the life experience to know that McDs is the type of place that busy bodies who fixate on news spend their time at dwelling on things like him.
Von Hugh
Member
the comments ><
Imagine living in 1980s or whatever, and seeing a glimpse of the future where the sentence "Beloved murderer canceled after old tweets surface" is a thing someone wrote.
Kraz
Member
The claim of cancelling seems a satirical onion, rather than an observation.Imagine living in 1980s or whatever, and seeing a glimpse of the future where the sentence "Beloved murderer canceled after old tweets surface" is a thing someone wrote.
Besides, cancel culture is apparently losing steam.
Last edited:
Toots
Gold Member
In all the talks about this for days, i haven't seen a better way to say it.
And as you said he seemed like a smart kid. How much disillusionment one can take ?
I don't condone his actions of course. I can't push myself to condemn them either.
Unabomber manifesto might have given him the means of acting , but the fire he had, the will to act definitively toward what he (and many others) perceived as a terrible injustice comes from somewhere else. My guess is that he read a lot of books as a kid, not political essays but novels. One of those might have been 20.000 leagues under the sea. Captain Nemo is a very interesting figure. Before being the famous pirate captain drowning british colonial ships left and right, he was a prince with a very wealthy background, with the best education the western world can giv. He decided to give up everything to fight against his peers (the wealthy and dominant) becasue of what he perceive as a great injustice. Parallels can be drawn with this kid who gave up an easy and pleasurable lifestyle to .
I don't know what it is with rich kids that makes them really good at this, but he got results whatever they are, just like ben laden did (another rich kid who threw away wealth and statut to go fight against what he perceived as evil).
Of course you also need to be a little bit crazy to think like that. I read plenty of books as a kid and never thought the solution was to kill someone.
Last edited:
Phryne Before the Areopagus - Wikipedia
While eating at McDonalds and posting on his iPhone.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
Trying to find 12 American who have never had to hear the debt of a bullshit claim denial is gonna be fun.Handsome bastard.
They're gonna have to stack the jury with CEO's to get a conviction lol.
It really depends what the guy's defense is gonna be. If he argues that he developed untreated schizoeffective personality disorder or something, jury sympathy might carry him a long way. If he goes the "it wasn't me" route he's probably cooked because they caught him with the murder weapon and a manifesto.
The Fartist
Gold Member
BlackTron
Member
Most likely because the guy who went after trump was A) unsuccessful and B) is already dead.
Aesius
Member
If you look at his upbringing, it's pretty clear that he grew up in a highly privileged bubble and most of his "real-world experiences" came from luxury travel and books. His childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood were nothing but him being shuttled from one productive and elitist school/activity to another.
Perfect combination of overeducated + underexperienced = arrogant and somewhat ignorant. I'm sure he would have grown out of it, and it seems like he was in the process of doing so. But people who tick off every box and make every single "right" move in life often feel completely unsatisfied once they've "arrived" and there are no more real milestones to achieve outside of marriage, house, kids, retirement, and death.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
c) been scrubbed from the internet too.
The Fartist
Gold Member
diffusionx
Gold Member
What,nothing weird about a 20 year old with no social media presence whatsoever, where basically nobody in his life has anything to say about him other than he was "quiet", and who appeared in a literal Blackrock commercial.
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
Based on the fact that he had a gun on him, still, and all the manifests, I dont think he wanted to avoid getting caught.
near
Gold Member
Which is weird because I figured since it had been days since the shooting and the fact that the assassination appeared well planned, that he'd be a lot smarter than this. Getting caught in McDonalds with the same gun(?), and hand written pages that mention UnitedHealthcare makes him come across as an incredibly dumb criminal.
violence
Member
My guess is, given that he likely turned to drugs like mushrooms to deal with his back pain, he’s probably not thinking straight.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Not really surprised. He’s young so chances of himself getting gimped healthcare would be low so a revenge motive would be low. Maybe it could had been family getting screwed over.
But by the looks of it, he did it for attention.
By the looks of it skimming info, he did well in school, looks good, fit, normal home life. Had a job doing tech stuff.
But he went out with a bang wanting to be some saviour martyr guy against healthcare industry.
Some people are just wacky. It’s like people get check ups at their doc, blood tests, blood pressure test etc… it’s like there should be a mental test too.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked