And the police wouldn’t have let random civilians “step over the body” even if they were somehow inclined to do so. Which strikes me as incredibly unlikely.
And civilians wouldn’t be calmly walking about when there was potentially an active shooter nearby. Not even New Yorkers.
Yes, the story is too pointedly constructed to express ideas such as ‘investors are heartless’ and ‘everybody hates insurance-company CEOs.’
In re these companies removing the photos of their officers from their websites: I was just looking for any breaking news on this story, and the search “United HealthCare CEO” brought up, quite prominently, a photo of the UnitedHealthGroup CEO (the slain CEO was of UnitedHealthCare).
I wonder if these companies will now bring suit against wikipedia, the source of the photo?
This reminds me of why I tilt my head at people who advocate going after the big bosses in general, at least on a practical level.
In the pre-union days, you had angry workers burning down the boss’s house because he had to live in the area to run things reasonably.
Today, we just had an entire four years packed with discussion about working remotely, sometimes even halfway across the world. You can fly in mercenaries that far too.
I just don’t think the rich will let themselves face the guillotines in the modern world. This is also why I’m unsure about the long term staying power of this incident (although driving the 1% out of America could do something, I don’t know).
How could you begin to believe something so ridiculous?
As to the shooter’s potential staying power in US folklore I’ll point out that this fellow lives on as a meme
There’s actually a decent biopic about that one. Ted K, available to stream on Hulu. It’s actually not bad, and does a pretty good job of painting the man as someone who could be pitied if only, on top of being severely mentally ill, he weren’t a misogynistic loser who kills people.
It really paints a portrait of a pathetic loser, and not some folk hero.
I don’t claim he is any sort of hero. Merely that his name and his story has more staying power than that of any of his victims. This shooter may be similar.
Erm… I believe that was a metaphor.
Or I’ll be buried in the king’s highway,
Some way of common trade, where subjects’ feet
May hourly trample on their sovereign’s head;
For on my heart they tread now whilst I live;
And buried once, why not upon my head?
— Richard II
Well, Richard III was found under a car park…
I lived in northernmost Montana and can attest. Not that I knew any Canadians desperate to get into the US–quite the opposite, in fact.
Moderating:
Please don’t attack other posters in MPSIMS.
The Canadian border is four miles away as the crow flies. I could kayak from Semiahmoo to Canada. I could walk across the border just about anywhere in Blaine. But I am positive (though I don’t actually know) that there are many sensors of many types for many miles along the Washington-Canada border. I’m not sure getting away with just walking across the border is as easy as it seems.
The road from where we lived in Havre, north central Montana (MT 232) to Alberta led to the checkpoint at Wild Horse. However, on either side are many barren miles of fields and scrub with no real obstacles between the US from Canada. It’s the northern plains, windswept scrub and wheat fields with very little shelter. If anyone was crossing the border illegally, we never heard about it.
During Prohibition, Havre was a big bootlegging town because it was close to the border, and it was easy to sneak in hooch. In fact, the house we lived in had a secret storage room and a secret passageway leading to another storage area. It was built during Prohibition.
I’ll shut up now.
So, I have a legal question: I keep hearing people speculate that if the shooter is put on trial, he will pontificate at length in the eyes of all America about all the countless deaths and greed-caused suffering inflicted by the insurance companies and whatnot, which would make him more of a folk hero and make the companies/CEOs look even worse.
But what prevents a judge from just banging the gavel and saying, “Only talk about things that are directly relevant to whether you are guilty or not, no going off-topic?” Does the defendant have some constitutional right to pontificate? Everyone has the right to speak in defense, but this could go off topic.
IANAL, but my guess is that the prosecutor would object on grounds of irrelevance and the judge would sustain.
That is, assuming the Adjuster even chooses to take the stand at his trial.
Well said. I’m in southern Alberta, and I am quite happy to be here. No desire to move to the US.
That being said, I will advise all our friends that all that separates us here between Alberta, Canada; and Montana, USA, is a pagewire fence. That is surveilled 24/7 by cameras, used by both sides. And on both sides, there is nothing but farmer’s fields, for as far as the eye can see.
And every winter, we hear about people, usually East Indians, who have not been equipped for the winter, and who cross those vast tracts of farm fields, and who typically die trying to get to that pagewire fence. Mostly, they die. Or are caught, as they stick out so much. Either way, if they do manage to cross the border, they are stuck in yet more farmers’ fields, with a long way to go, like 60 miles, before they get anywhere near a town that can accomodate them.
As I’ve so often said, Canada’s greatest defence is its geography and its climate.
Assuming he’s even inclined to state his case, there’s no need for a courtroom spectacle. They’ll be lining up to interview him and his story will be all over the place.
Something about this feels personal, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s not some social justice crusader.
Misguided “social justice” crusader. I trust we agree that real social justice does not involve gunning down people in the streets.