When I heard about the Monopoly money I wondered if it matched up with the amount of a specific denied claim.

But he’s not dead, he’s going to prison. Does he plan to commit suicide behind bars? He’ll probably be on tighter watch than Epstein - that’s what happens when you mess with the ruling class.

He could have planned to have a shootout and suicide-by-cop but that didn't happen. I was genuinely surprised that they took him alive.

Life in prison is just a delayed death sentence.

Life outside prison is also a delayed death sentence.

The difference between life-in-prison and a death sentence is pretty minimal, given the length of time it takes in the US to get through the death row process. Decades, typically. Many are never actually executed. In either case, you are expected to die in a jail cell after many, many years of incarceration.

The difference between those two and a non-imprisoned life is... significant.

But not as bad of a sentence, since you're not in prison.

In prison the state pays for his health care.

A "delayed death sentence" is awful if you if you have chronic pain and are seeking suicide by revolution.

I dont think the two are equivalent

Death by suicide is entirely attainable in prison, if desired.

so what? that still doesn't mean that life in prison is the same as suicide.

Correct. I'm asserting life in prison and a death sentence are functionally identical.

Both can be ended via suicide, if the inmate so chooses.

Death sentence is often seen as better because you might get an individual cell, and copious pro bono appeals for your case.

He won’t get a death penalty for the charges which have been announced so far. Those which are severe enough to carry a death sentence in many US jurisdictions (like murder) are New York state charges, and NY law hasn’t had a death penalty for two decades now or an execution in roughly 8 decades.

If there somehow end up being Pennsylvania or federal charges against him in connection with the murder, those criminal law systems still have the death penalty.

He does currently face some Pennsylvania charges as well, such as firearms charges in connection with the encounter where he was arrested, but none of those are severe enough to warrant a death sentence.

life anywhere is just a delayed death sentence...

Where he'll get treatment on the taxpayer dime?

For what it's worth there have been a number of cases of elderly patients holding up a bank for $1 and then sitting in the waiting area to be arrested with the stated goal to get medical treatment. I have no idea how many of them actually end up in jail or get the treatment they desired.

Oh, the precious taxpayer dime! Given to overspending public works, bureucracy, foreign wars, and other bullshit, as well as all kinds of private companies who sculp him!

But god forbid it's also used to treat sick people! Or prisoners.

In this case it's the specific irony of not being able to afford healthcare unless separated from society.

Don't misunderstand me, I think it's fine he gets the treatment he needs to resolve his pain.

It should have happened without death, is all.

That’s what happens when you commit a crime. It doesn’t matter who you kill or who you are when you do it. If the CEO had killed this guy in the same manner, he’d be facing the same consequences.

This is generally true for something like gunning down someone in the street.

(Even then: being a cop or the President helps...)

For almost all other crimes, no, probably not.

Even for murder, it's not entirely true; https://nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/teen-killed-another-wo... happened on the same day, but certainly didn't see the level of police resources involved in finding the killer. Teams of cops with drones weren't searching large swathes of NYC for those perps.

I'd be surprised if they NYPD and the FBI spent anything even remotely close to e.g. 10% of what they did in this cases to investigate any random average murder.

If he just shot someone randomly in a poorer neighbourhood he likely would still be free.

Your point is well made. If someone shoots you in a trailer park or the hood, nobody is launching a nationwide manhunt.

I redact my previous comment but leave it for posterity.

I wouldn't be shocked if he walks. There is something crazy in the air and I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one. Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial.

I'm reminded of the trial of John Brown. For those who aren't history buffs, John Brown led a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, VA in October 1859, hoping to steal weapons to arm the slaves and fuel a slave revolt. He was caught and executed in December 1859. The country collapsed into civil war 17 months later, at Lincoln's inauguration. Historians wryly note that John Brown was executed for doing, on a small scale, the same thing that Lincoln did on a large scale 2 years later.

nostrademons says >"Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial."<

which seems pretty far-fetched to me.

But poster ablation earlier spoke of the:

"toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising." on ZeroHedge."

Is HN immune to what happened to Zerohedge? Some of the posts here are pretty speculative, to put it mildly.

What happened to Zerohedge?

> Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury. Lots of people can answer with a "no" quite truthfully, myself included.

(Note also that I am not making a comment on whether or not I approve of how juries are selected, this is simply how it works.)

Counterpoint: I don't know anyone who could answer "no" truthfully. Maybe it's because I am in an older age group?

You're right there are lots of people who can answer "no". However, it's also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers, and remember that juries skew older.

It's possible that screening everyone out who answers "yes" would not be allowed by the judge for this reason. Then, the prosecution would only have a small number of "no reason" exclusions.

> Counterpoint: I don’t know anyone who could answer “no” truthfully.

People who have never personally been insured would answer “no” truthfully, people who have been insured but only consumed in-network, fairly routine services might be able to answer “No” truthfully (though hiccups even with that leading to initial denials are not uncommon), and people under 26 who have only been on their parents insurance and have been shielded from the details of insurance interactions would be able to answer “No” often without intentional misrepresentation.

> However, it’s also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers,

“Jury of peers” is a line from Magna Carta referring to barons’ right to have their guilt or innocence determined by other barons and does not appear in the US Constitution. The limitation on excluding jurors in the US system is that the unlimited number of exclusions for cause that attorneys for either side may request are determined by the judge on the basis of whether the potential juror has sufficient evidence of bias that would make them incapable of rendering a fair verdict, and other exclusions (peremptory challenges) are sharply limited in number, not some assessment of whether the net result is “a true jury of peers”.

> “Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?” Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.

That’s not a sufficient basis for a dismissal for cause, most people who have ever had insurance would answer “Yes” to that question, and prosecutors don’t have an infinite number of peremptory challenges.

So, they probably won’t dismiss on the basis of that answer alone, but do some followup if the answer is “Yes”.

The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."

One of the more sympathetic views towards the murderer is that there was no legal avenue to pursue the CEO for mass fraud under which the plaintiffs would get a fair shake. Vigilantism is more welcome by the public when it appears to be the only recourse.

>The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."

What prevents the juror answering "no", and then acting precisely on this belief?

A scary man in a suit and another scary one with a gavel who can put you in jail for 6 months because you looked at him wrong.

A lot would say "yes" though. It doesn't have to be something major.

My wife's eye exam was scheduled a day early. Denied, though I'm not that annoyed over $250.

That's over 30 hours of work for a very large portion of the population.

It is a significant amount of money/effort for many, yes.

Originally I said I wasn't going on a shooting spree over it and edited it. Maybe I should have left it after all.

> Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.

In the US, it will be very difficult to find people who can say no to that.

> I wouldn't be shocked if he walks.

Just for curiosities sake, who did you think would win the latest US presidential election?

I feel like many (most?) people on the internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet. I'm guessing that most of the average folks (people outside the internet zeitgeist) never even heard about this assassination, even less cares about the assassin going free if they did.

I guessed correctly on the last 6 elections personally.

I was at a party over the weekend. I asked a room of 30 people what they thought of the assassin and the overwhelming consensus was hero, they wouldn't say anything if they saw him, and if they were on the jury they would acquit. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a replay of OJ Simpson where one of the jurors gave OJ a power fist as he walked out for the verdict. It only takes 1 person to get onto the jury and acquit. Americans love a robin hood.

> the overwhelming consensus was hero

I'm guessing that makes it pretty clear that it wasn't really a mixed of "real Americans" as almost nothing is so black & white, especially if you compare people who live very different lives.

But, I could be wrong, it has happened before and it's bound to happen again at some point :)

I had the same experience talking to others around here. I guess they aren't "real Americans" either. Or, maybe this is an unusually black & white event.

> Or, maybe this is an unusually black & white event.

I'd say the HN public is the bubble there. Lot of aspiring CEO who take the "don't care with rules if you can get away with it" message to heart so they feel like they have more in common with the victim than with the perpetrator of this murder. While I would not be surprised if it is the reverse for 90% of the USA population.

HN is literally the only place (online or in the real world) I've seen anyone defending this CEO and trying to drum up sympathy for him. It's likely that we are the weird bubble outside of everyone else.

Trump just got voted in.

By ~50% of voters, not 99%. More people agree on this than do on cat pics being cute.

> Trump just got voted in.

So? You'd be surprised by what many of them think about insurance companies CEOs.

Had a similar experience. All our guests at a dinner party were hoping he would escape.

Probably they were no true scotsmen either

>internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet.

Are insurance companies more liked among internet users or less liked among internet users (than the population at large)? I presume that internet users tend to be wealthier (due to more free/leisure time, better browsing technology) and less angry with their insurance than non-users, but could be wrong.

They will ensure the selection of the absolute dumbest and most docile jurors possible to prevent this outcome.

I was thinking suckers, but I guess it's the same thing.

Doesn't the defense also get a say on the juror selection?

> ... I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one.

Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?

> Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?

A hung jury leads to a mistrial. After a mistrial, the prosecution has the option of trying the case again, but it gets harder (you’ve got more time from the events, a more-tainted jury pool, etc.)

Also, if there are multiple charges, and the jury reaches a not guilty verdict on any charges, that may impact the ability to refile other charges, or make it harder to try them if they can be refiled, because any fact that the jury necessarily rejected in an acquittal is finally decided by that acquittal.

> Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

By having a filtering process before the jury is empanelled to identify that.

Good luck with that...

my money's on him being "suicided" with the cameras off before a public trial can take place...

I dont think so, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I can understand the symbolism here between the backpack of game money then.

I haven’t gotten all the details, but something like this makes sense. It was a personal vendetta from a person out of desperation/frustration.

I guess as more details come out we will know

> If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live

I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping away at the actual vertebrae) in addition to clamping my nerve roots shut. I had emergency surgery in my neck in early 2018. Prior to the thoracic spine injury, I was in the best shape of my life; very muscular and healthy with a 6-pack like you see in Luigi's pictures.

It's been an absolute miserable experience for the last 8 years. Being gaslighted by doctors before and after my surgery didn't help. Insurance tried to deny my emergency surgery at first despite the fact I lost all sensation from the neck down almost overnight. When you're dealing with trauma and the system works against you, very dark thoughts start to form. I'm not going to say I condone what Luigi did, but if you think people go through these events and don't think those thoughts on many occasions, you're so very wrong. There's a HUGE range of emotions that comes with it all. Suicide was definitely one of them for a long time as well. I have a wife and kids though and do not wish to burden them further by adding to the list of problems. They're the only things that's kept me going strong this whole time.

Spinal problems are definitely on the list why seemingly "not terminally ill" people might want to take the option of euthanasia. Healthy imbeciles will scream with outrage "it's a sin, one must keep them alive at all costs" but that's because it's not them tortured 24/7 but other guy. And people are able to do monstrous things to other people without as much as loosing a night sleep.

Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.

If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.

I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

As I get older, I understand this phrase more and more.

I've learned that most people don't consider themselves to be "bad" or "malicious" overall. People will earnestly espouse opinions of arbitrary quality, with unknown justification and intent, and expect others to agree with them. They don't consider that they may be speaking out of severe lack of empathy or knowledge (Gell-Mann amnesia!). We're extremely limited and oftentimes we don't even recognize it.

I mean, prison might help take care of his back problem more than a health insurance company would.

I'm sorry you've gone through that and I hope your condition improves. While I don't know the specifics of your case, in general there aren't a lot of real solid evidence-based medicine guidelines for treating back pain or injuries. Ask 10 different physicians and you'll get 10 different treatment plans. Surgery has made many patients worse in the long run. Obviously there are some traumatic injuries where emergency surgery is medically necessary, but for most patients the standard of care should be physical therapy first with surgery being a high-risk last resort.

https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/

You can't get approved for surgery without PT in many cases anyway, so by default, most people will have to undergo PT regardless. In a lot of cases, you still can't get surgery; insurance will request pain management via injections and stuff before approving surgery. In my case, I had to go through 6 weeks of PT, then insurance asked me to do another 6 weeks after the first 6 failed to produce benefits. PT accelerated my decline because they didn't understand the mechanics in my case, so it's not always beneficial either. Also some of those conservative treatments (injections) are still being denied by insurance. My dad recently went to get another series of injections and was denied because they didn't think it would be medically beneficial despite the fact that he improved significantly from the first set and it lasted over 6 months.

Unfortunately there's a huge variance in PT quality and skill levels, so just because 6 weeks of PT doesn't produce results doesn't necessarily mean that a different approach to PT wouldn't be better than surgery. Seriously, have you tried visiting a McGill Method Master Clinician? I would certainly try that before letting a surgeon cut on me. Watch the video I linked above and see if it might be relevant.

What sort of injections are you referring to? Corticosteroid injections can sometimes be helpful in the short term but clinical practice guidelines discourage prolonged use due to the risk of bone damage and other severe side effects. So insurers aren't necessarily wrong to deny payment for those.

> I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it

Same here, except I’ve had it since ~2000 (mid-teenager). Anytime a suggested treatment makes it to insurance, they deny it because “it’s extremely uncommon for back problems of someone your age to be in the thoracic spine.” They’ll gladly pay for unnecessary surgeries on the lumbar, but refuse even many diagnostic attempts in the thoracic area.

Honestly, if he were me, I may feel the same way.