UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is reporting that the gun was probably a bruger and thomet station six 9. https://bt-usa.com/products/station-six-9/. The gun cycles manually with a bolt, which matches the video. This is an old design (WW2) for covert ops and evidently popular among veterinarians for putting animals down.

Nope. Nope nope nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

I don’t know if the CEO is a bad person or not. What’s concerning to me is that people seem to think that he is a bad person just because he runs a health insurance company.

I just don’t understand what people think the alternatives are. Should we have a system where every claim is approved, and people get whatever care they want? That would be great but you could expect much much higher premiums. I also like the idea of non-profit healthcare much better than for-profit healthcare — but that’s essentially what we used to have and most of those non-profit healthcare systems have gone out of business. UPMC is nominally non-profit but operates basically like a for-profit business in all respects.

I just truly do not understand what people want. This country has pretty definitely rejected a socialized medicine model. And everyone was so upset when premiums went up after the ACA put breaks on insurance company denials for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.

Is UHC demonstrably worse than the other healthcare options out there? Or is the hate just for the system generally? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage, as do a bunch of other retirees I know, and they’ve never had trouble with claim denial despite have pretty complicated medical needs.

I think the answer is yes, UHC is worse. And the whole notion of for-profit health insurance is distressing to many.

As for the exec, I think there’s a good case that the super rich CEOs are in some ways inherently bad. The pay packages are obscene and they put their own profit ahead of the good of the people who need health care.

On the question is whether UHC is worse….so should people be switching away from UHC with open enrollment season? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage and have had a pretty good experience to date. Are there better Medicare Advantage type plans?

You assume everyone has a choice. My thousands of people organization has one plan choice, HDHP. The thing that saves us, is spouse has BCBS Federal. I have healthy kids, and I'm healthy too - but the financial impact of my plan alone would be impactful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is reporting that the gun was probably a bruger and thomet station six 9. https://bt-usa.com/products/station-six-9/. The gun cycles manually with a bolt, which matches the video. This is an old design (WW2) for covert ops and evidently popular among veterinarians for putting animals down.

The bolt is cycled by pulling the rear knob back, rotating the knob to open, dumping the spent casing, and closing the bolt, another 90 degree turn. That's not the grab and rack the slide we see in the video. IMHO, the shooter had a failure to go into battery. He just needed to force the gun into battery and not rack the slide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

That could be plausible, except for the problems with the gun. Because he was clearly expecting the gun to function again after firing the first shot. Except it didn’t. He tried to fire, realized it hadn’t cycled the action, and then had to cycle it manually to get it to fire again. Then he had to repeat that process several more times. That means he hasn’t previously tested this gun and suppressor combination before. That’s something that a professional would never do - go into a job with untested gear.


Other than that, your theory is plausible.

I thought they weren’t actual jams but that this particular gun model had to be manually cycled between shots. But either way, he clearly knew what he was doing in handling it with ease. It didn’t seem to throw him off.

+1. I don't know much about guns, but whatever happened he didn't miss a beat.

All that means is he’s had some prior shooting experience.

Look, this guy wasn’t exactly channeling John Wick. He had two hits in 4 shots, from 15 feet away. And one of those was in the calf, FFS. This was NOT some feat of incredible marksmanship.

It was a guy who knew how to operate a gun, clear a jam, and fire again - but apparently didn’t have any experience with how suppressors can cause guns to malfunction. So he had to cycle it manually after realizing it wouldn’t cycle on its own. That’s basically what anyone with any familiarity with shooting pistols would do. He didn’t show me any special skill there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is reporting that the gun was probably a bruger and thomet station six 9. https://bt-usa.com/products/station-six-9/. The gun cycles manually with a bolt, which matches the video. This is an old design (WW2) for covert ops and evidently popular among veterinarians for putting animals down.

The bolt is cycled by pulling the rear knob back, rotating the knob to open, dumping the spent casing, and closing the bolt, another 90 degree turn. That's not the grab and rack the slide we see in the video. IMHO, the shooter had a failure to go into battery. He just needed to force the gun into battery and not rack the slide.

^^^ 100% THIS ^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

So do a CT scan, and then a MRI? You sound like a brain doctor.

Do you understand that CT scans are *far* cheaper than MRIs?

So do unnecessary tests?

I think we all need to ignore this apologist, idiot troll now.

Health care costs are going to continue to go through the roof with that attitude. How much are you willing to pay each year for health care?

My FEHB family plan is already $30k/year.

So let’s take insurance companies’ billions of dollars in profits and reinvest them in the provision of care to bring costs down for your family and others.

United Health made $23B in profit in 2023. That's a lot, although it's less impressive when you consider their costs were $348B.

More significantly, that's much less than the *growth* of costs from 2022 to 2023.

That is, you could get rid of profits in the health insurance industry and your premiums wouldn't go down. They'd just go up less the next year-- a one time effect that wouldn't be repeated in subsequent years. In subsequent years the premiums might go up even faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

That could be plausible, except for the problems with the gun. Because he was clearly expecting the gun to function again after firing the first shot. Except it didn’t. He tried to fire, realized it hadn’t cycled the action, and then had to cycle it manually to get it to fire again. Then he had to repeat that process several more times. That means he hasn’t previously tested this gun and suppressor combination before. That’s something that a professional would never do - go into a job with untested gear.


Other than that, your theory is plausible.

maybe or he saw it coming.

Looks like a polymer 80 Glock 19 frame with a homemade suppressor that lacked a neilsen device or a lightweight guide rod spring causing the gun to short stroke. That would explain the slide popping out live rounds.

100% agree. Homemade ‘can with no booster. Amateur.

I know nothing about firearms, but a friend said it’s possible he used subsonic bullets to be quieter, which would mean he would have to cycle it manually.

I have several suppressors designed to function on various semiauto pistols (they all have pistons/recoil boosters) and they will all fire subsonic ammo without any problems at all. The most common pistol I shoot suppressed is a Glock 17 with 147 grain subsonic ammo, and the heavier than normal bullet (most 9mm is 115-124 grain) actually increases recoil slightly because it’s a larger mass being moved compared to the lighter supersonic bullets the pistol normally fires without a suppressor on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

That could be plausible, except for the problems with the gun. Because he was clearly expecting the gun to function again after firing the first shot. Except it didn’t. He tried to fire, realized it hadn’t cycled the action, and then had to cycle it manually to get it to fire again. Then he had to repeat that process several more times. That means he hasn’t previously tested this gun and suppressor combination before. That’s something that a professional would never do - go into a job with untested gear.


Other than that, your theory is plausible.

I thought they weren’t actual jams but that this particular gun model had to be manually cycled between shots. But either way, he clearly knew what he was doing in handling it with ease. It didn’t seem to throw him off.

+1. I don't know much about guns, but whatever happened he didn't miss a beat.

All that means is he’s had some prior shooting experience.

Look, this guy wasn’t exactly channeling John Wick. He had two hits in 4 shots, from 15 feet away. And one of those was in the calf, FFS. This was NOT some feat of incredible marksmanship.

It was a guy who knew how to operate a gun, clear a jam, and fire again - but apparently didn’t have any experience with how suppressors can cause guns to malfunction. So he had to cycle it manually after realizing it wouldn’t cycle on its own. That’s basically what anyone with any familiarity with shooting pistols would do. He didn’t show me any special skill there.

I think we are quibbling over what it means to be proficient with a firearm. His abilities seem consistent with that of an above average, but not exceptional, LEO. I would consider LEOs proficient with firearms, even if not especially skilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

I think it’s multiple people to throw the cops off.

PP you responded to and I agree -- but I think the guy they are looking for is a professional. But agree he must have had help.

Maybe, but are there professional sicarios in the US? Most homicides are little gangsters spraying and praying. Also, he is absolutely horrible with a firearm and he obviously never tested the gun with that supressor/ammo combo before the shooting.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I think people are watching too many movies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is reporting that the gun was probably a bruger and thomet station six 9. https://bt-usa.com/products/station-six-9/. The gun cycles manually with a bolt, which matches the video. This is an old design (WW2) for covert ops and evidently popular among veterinarians for putting animals down.

I read the same article and they are likely wrong. The way you cycle that gun is a lot different than how you cycle or pull the slide back on a standard auto pistol like a Glock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. Not only are the Saclers not in prison, they actually have amazing lifestyles. I know a couple of them, and the way they live is absolutely outrageous. Gorgeous $10mm homes, second and third properties in popular vacation towns, first class flights and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

That could be plausible, except for the problems with the gun. Because he was clearly expecting the gun to function again after firing the first shot. Except it didn’t. He tried to fire, realized it hadn’t cycled the action, and then had to cycle it manually to get it to fire again. Then he had to repeat that process several more times. That means he hasn’t previously tested this gun and suppressor combination before. That’s something that a professional would never do - go into a job with untested gear.


Other than that, your theory is plausible.

I thought they weren’t actual jams but that this particular gun model had to be manually cycled between shots. But either way, he clearly knew what he was doing in handling it with ease. It didn’t seem to throw him off.

+1. I don't know much about guns, but whatever happened he didn't miss a beat.

All that means is he’s had some prior shooting experience.

Look, this guy wasn’t exactly channeling John Wick. He had two hits in 4 shots, from 15 feet away. And one of those was in the calf, FFS. This was NOT some feat of incredible marksmanship.

It was a guy who knew how to operate a gun, clear a jam, and fire again - but apparently didn’t have any experience with how suppressors can cause guns to malfunction. So he had to cycle it manually after realizing it wouldn’t cycle on its own. That’s basically what anyone with any familiarity with shooting pistols would do. He didn’t show me any special skill there.

I think we are quibbling over what it means to be proficient with a firearm. His abilities seem consistent with that of an above average, but not exceptional, LEO. I would consider LEOs proficient with firearms, even if not especially skilled.

His skills are consistent with the average striker fired gun owner. Failure to cycle? Tap and rack. Pull trigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.

I think it’s multiple people to throw the cops off.

PP you responded to and I agree -- but I think the guy they are looking for is a professional. But agree he must have had help.

Maybe, but are there professional sicarios in the US? Most homicides are little gangsters spraying and praying. Also, he is absolutely horrible with a firearm and he obviously never tested the gun with that supressor/ammo combo before the shooting.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I think people are watching too many movies.

Professionals don’t leave the backpack, don’t get caught on camera, etc.. with a pro, the guy would have just dropped out of nowhere

[Anonymous]

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. Not only are the Saclers not in prison, they actually have amazing lifestyles. I know a couple of them, and the way they live is absolutely outrageous. Gorgeous $10mm homes, second and third properties in popular vacation towns, first class flights and so on.


+1 Everone should read or listen to Empire of Pain.

[Anonymous]

I’m honestly curious how long he took to plan this