- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
Murder bingo, murder scavenger hunt, time traveler trying to stop the future apocalypse no lack of options…
Are you really suggesting that only possible realistic motive to murder him is because of his position at UHC?
I can think of so many plausible scenarios. I just gave you one, here’s another: he was cheating on his wife, so she paid to have him killed, something that actually happens in the real world and doesn’t involved time travelers.
I’m sure you would like this to be a just world where bad people get killed for good reasons, but that’s not how the world works. Hitler’s generals tried to assassinate him and it wasn’t because they thought he was being too mean to the Jews.
nope, just toying around with the concept, figured it would be about 3/5 on the joke scale.
edit: Though if you really wanted to get into it, the words scribed on the casings might direct you to a likely solution. *
Or the words on the casings are intended to direct you to the wrong solution. Because, again in the real world, people who commit premeditated crimes throw police off the scent intentionally.
Ehh, I think Occam would have the better of that here.
In any case. (no pun intended) Maybe they’ll spend a few minutes reflecting on the own mortality while they’re ripping us off thinking there’s no recourse.
Would you say the same about this?
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/10/free-gaza-messages-found-on-devices-at-burned-ballot-boxes-new-york-times-reports.html
People commit crimes and then pin the blame on someone else literally every day. It’s like the easiest way to try to get away with a crime.
The concept of the Razor is that it’s a guide to likelyhood. You cannot prove it right or wrong and you certainly can’t disprove it with even a substantial list of unrelated cases of false flags.
We’re both speaking firmly from conjecture, and neither of us has any substantial evidence.
Yes, that was my point.
Ah yes. “The murderer must be playing 5d chess to fool people” angle. It’s an angle, but not a reasonable one. How much Scooby Doo have you watched?
It takes “5D chess” to write vague words on bullet casings?
You did not answer my Scooby Doo question
Correct. I decided not to report you for trolling. Should I have?
Oh no!!! Gasp!
Possible vs Probable.
Lots of things are possible, sure, but his position and impact on people due to his position does make one very probable.
I am guessing you do not know enough about him personally to know what is the most probable. Maybe he very openly cheats on his wife. That would make his wife hiring a hit man very probable. Maybe he’s swindled someone out of a ton of money on a personal level rather than via UHC. Again, that would make a good motive to kill him.
We do not have enough information here and pretending we do is not very wise.
He MAYBE fucked around on his one wife causing embarrassment.
He CERTAINLY fucked around with THOUSANDS of people causing DEATH.
It’s worthwhile to consider alternatives but it’s unwise to paint all scenarios as equally likely.
It’s also unwise to come to a conclusion when the person who did it hasn’t even been identified.
I don’t think most people have strictly concluded anything, they’ve just acknowledged the a significant probability.
You’re on a semantic crusade.
People are sure acting like they have strictly concluded it.
I’m entirely empathetic to your position.
Internet conversation is intrinsically imperfect. The contract of semantics isn’t sufficient.
I think in so many senses of the word, you’re right. Technically right. But not practically responding to the practical intention of the communication.
True, it’s possible he has numerous enemies.
But what I can say is the average person doesn’t have people wanting to kill them. If all things are equal, and given the message written on the casings, there seems to be one that is currently the most probable.
Obviously there are many plausible scenarios, but one of them scales significantly differently than the others.
If there are many plausible scenarios, even if one is the most plausible, it’s silly to assume that’s the one.
It’s only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.
If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.
If I see Zebras, I’ll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I’m wrong all the fucking time, being right isn’t part of my identity.
But until then, if someone says “what do figure those hoofbeats are?” I’m not going to say “50/50 horses or zebras”
Assumptions are claimed to be established facts. That’s what an assumption is. You’re making a claim of fact without having the evidence.
This means it’s being regarded as true for the purposes of a context. “Hypothetical” is another term which would be useful here. But you’re being probably needlessly pedantic about this. I think everyone can agree that there are millions of people his company has harmed who thus have motive to do this, and at the same time other motives are quite possible. Maybe he broke up with the guy who shot him. Maybe he was part of an international zebra smuggling ring. Maybe it was just completely random, but fate just happened to land on someone who really deserved it. Maybe the total lack of accountability in our justice system finally drove someone over the edge.
Don’t feed the troll.
No, that’s not what it means. You are redefining it. Hypothetical would be fine though.
But… thats the literal copy-pasted dictionary definition. I’m so confused here.
Established facts do come with proof. That’s how they are established to be fact. You’ll notice a suspicious avoidance of the word “fact” in the definition you posted.
Sorry, are you under the bizarre impression that ‘true’ and ‘fact’ are different things?
No.
But if you preface them with qualifiers that means something, no? Are those words meaningless embellishment or are they intended to provide additional meaning, and if so, what?