Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have professional and personal reasons to really loathe the insurance industry but I still am very disturbed by the reaction-not the jokes but the people actually thinking it’s justified. This type of thinking is how we get people shooting docs who perform abortions. This isn’t the way, folks.

1) we’ve already had abortion doctors getting shot for decades. That horse is so far out of the barn it’s now holding kid’s craft projects together on thousands of refrigerators around the country.

2) it’s extremely telling that the very first reactions among corporate leadership wasn’t “hey wow, people are really upset at us - maybe we need to re-examine our ethics and the way we do business”, but instead it was “I need a fully armored Mercedes and a 6-man protection team composed of former SEAL operators, armed with submachineguns to watch over me 24/7/365”. This was the EXACT wrong reaction for corporate America - and this reaction shows why this stuff probably needs to happen a few more times.

I think if we as a society decide we aren’t going to have a bright line about murdering people who we feel are unethical we will see a lot more abortion providers killed. No argument from me that the corporate response is both idiotic and infuriating.

You are clearly unaware of violence perpetrated against reproductive care providers and staff, PPFA facilities, etc for at least four decades. There was a firebombing in my hometown. That line was crossed a long time ago with pretty much zilch push back from GOP leadership.

I’m absolutely not unaware of that-that’s my point! It’s awful and already happens sometimes-i don’t want it happening more. If you think there aren’t some people who would be inclined to commit similar crimes but are constrained by the idea that murder is wrong even if the would be victim (in your assessment) is grossly unethical I don’t know what to tell you.

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.

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are making crazy profits. How about just a reasonable profit?

is that how America works though? in any sector or industry?
if so, please name which one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Their chance to get him was in the first couple of hours after the murder. He’s long gone. And the NYPD looks completely incompetent. They haven’t even figured out this guy’s name and they have a pretty clear picture and DNA.

They may know his name but are not showing their hand yet. I’m not sure they have his DNA. Maybe he planted the water bottle on purpose. Even if they have DNA, it’s irrelevant unless he’s in a database somewhere. If he is a foreigner, he wouldn’t be. Even as an American, if he has no prior criminal record, why would his DNA be in any system?

They don't know his name. Eric Adams is saying "we know his name but aren't telling it becuase we don't want to give him an advantage." That's ridiculous -- you just wouldn't say anytning if you didn't want to give him an advantage. They don't know it.

But Eric Adams would never lie! 😆

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only person who thinks the ex-wife set this up and the rest of the story is smoke and mirrors? They’ve been separated since 2018, maybe her financial situation was getting ready to change. I find it suspect that she is aware of him receiving threats as she purports. I don’t know of any couple who has been separated for six years who are aware of the day to day of their former spouse. Just a thought.

I mean they have kids together and he may think she needs to be aware of threats in case she noticed anything odd. Or maybe someone told her after the fact there had been threats and she was just repeating that. It may not have been first hand knowledge.

I don’t buy it’s the wife because if she was still married to him then his money was still also half hers.

I don’t think it’s the wife. They’ve been apart a long time. What would her motivation be to do it now in this moment? The kids are in high school, and he probably was a hands off dad due to his work. So, she probably got to do what she wanted.

They're fighting over money and he is dragging out the divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Their chance to get him was in the first couple of hours after the murder. He’s long gone. And the NYPD looks completely incompetent. They haven’t even figured out this guy’s name and they have a pretty clear picture and DNA.

They may know his name but are not showing their hand yet. I’m not sure they have his DNA. Maybe he planted the water bottle on purpose. Even if they have DNA, it’s irrelevant unless he’s in a database somewhere. If he is a foreigner, he wouldn’t be. Even as an American, if he has no prior criminal record, why would his DNA be in any system?

They don't know his name. Eric Adams is saying "we know his name but aren't telling it becuase we don't want to give him an advantage." That's ridiculous -- you just wouldn't say anytning if you didn't want to give him an advantage. They don't know it.

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:

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 wrote:They are making crazy profits. How about just a reasonable profit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His picture has been widely shown. Surely someone recognized him and has connected with the police?

People have no interest in turning in Robin Hood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only person who thinks the ex-wife set this up and the rest of the story is smoke and mirrors? They’ve been separated since 2018, maybe her financial situation was getting ready to change. I find it suspect that she is aware of him receiving threats as she purports. I don’t know of any couple who has been separated for six years who are aware of the day to day of their former spouse. Just a thought.

I mean they have kids together and he may think she needs to be aware of threats in case she noticed anything odd. Or maybe someone told her after the fact there had been threats and she was just repeating that. It may not have been first hand knowledge.

I don’t buy it’s the wife because if she was still married to him then his money was still also half hers.

I don’t think it’s the wife. They’ve been apart a long time. What would her motivation be to do it now in this moment? The kids are in high school, and he probably was a hands off dad due to his work. So, she probably got to do what she wanted.

They're fighting over money and he is dragging out the divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere between Central Park and the taxi he ditches the e-bike.

Strange if it hasn’t been found.

How would you distinguish it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere between Central Park and the taxi he ditches the e-bike.

Strange if it hasn’t been found.

Anonymous wrote:Somewhere between Central Park and the taxi he ditches the e-bike.