Other links:

https://github.com/lnmangione

https://x.com/pepmangione - more of a reposter than a commenter, for example

* reposts link on mental health titled "Seasonality of brain function: role in psychiatric disorders"

* view on what's wrong with society: "I believe this book will go down in history as the most important philosophical text of the early 21st century." [Tim Urban's "What's Our Problem?"]

* [ironically] on intelligence, liking the quote "Being smart makes you more prone to confirmation bias"

* likes John Haidt's new book "The Anxious Generation"

etc

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/55354261-luigi-mangione

Gave a 4 star review to the Unabomber manifesto!

quote from his review:

"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.""

nice investigative journalism! how did you find this when the profile is private? is there an easy way to search reviews by name?

It wasn't private not too long ago

very strange. who has access to his goodreads account to change it?

Interesting. It was private for me too. But I clicked to read the full list of the 474 4-star reviews and scrolled and found it. From there I found a direct link to his review which still works (as of a few hours after his name leaked) at: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4065667863

He justifies Ted Kaczynski saying: "He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people. While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary."

The quote about "Violence never solved anything..." it turns out are not his words, they are part of him quoting someone else in his review; but I wasn't able to find the source of the long message he quoted; just news articles from the last few hours mentioning the quote.

EDIT: nevermind, found the origin of the quote on reddit r/climate: https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/comment/j5...

Another notable GoodReads comment (from Luigi) regarding another book: "I love Steve-O. His life is full of wild stories, and his addictive personality is one I relate to. "

TBH, this feels like some kind of psychotic break. He just kind of stops posting out of nowhere. On twitter there are some attempts from others to reach him that seem concerned for his wellbeing: https://x.com/DanielleFong/status/1866211089660477490

https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigi-mangione/

https://www.facebook.com/luigi.mangione.2

Civilization VI Team

Fixed over 300 UI bugs (25% of UI bug count) using Lua language, Jira software, and Perforce version-control system

After seemingly acting so carefully right before and after the shooting I’m perplexed as to why he had so much evidence still on him (Gun/silencer, Fake ID, manifesto) during the arrest. One would think he would have discarded or destroyed those things as soon as possible after the incident.

Just to put the hypothesis out there: because he's a fall guy to placate the people afraid of being killed like the UHC CEO, which the authorities desperately need.

(Although a brief perusal of the photos in the article doesn't show anything obviously different between them.)

With is face pretty much being captured on camera in the hostel and in an Uber I'm not sure there was much point hiding it. He was going to get caught shortly whatever he did.

Police revealed that finding the 26-year-old was a complete surprise, and that they did not have his name on a list of suspects prior to today

So when they said they knew who he was yesterday it was a lie.

Eric Adams doesn't have a strong reality filter, and it's usually good to cross-check things he says, especially if he's the only person saying them. I don't think he consciously makes things up, he just tends to gravitate towards saying things that sound good in the moment.

Or, if we're being really charitable, they were chasing the wrong guy.

All you did was make the phrase "makes things up" more palatable. It still means the same thing. He lies.

I like understanding why people are making things up.

Edit: sorry, I was a bit snarky there and I shouldn't have been. I was in fact splitting a hair there; it's a useful one for me but it's far from obligatory.

What lies has Eric Adams said?

He’s a former cop and a current politician, I’d be surprised if anything he says publicly is true.

Let me remind you here that it is the job of the government and specifically the police to lie to you. So if he was lying, he was doing his job.

I don't know why you are being downvoted. My father was a cop, went through the academy when I was 15. I distinctly remember him explaining to me about how they are taught to lie to get people to cross their stories up.

He lies.

He's a cop turned politician.. cows moo, crocodiles chomp, and these critters lie. It's their nature.

Cops protect and serve. I'm not sure who you're thinking of.

Lolol. Were thinking of the ones who break into your house and kill you thinking it was their’s, the ones that killed Breonna Taylor, chased a black man running etc.

It was specifically Eric Adams who sort of implied that - but it was a bit of a cagey response, and NYPD later stated that day they had no ID:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5028239-mayor-adams-sa...

Given Adam’s past year, there was never a reason to take what he says at face value.

I don't think that's a fair characterization.

When asked by a reporter if police had the suspect’s name, Adams said, “We don’t want to release that now. If you do, you’re basically giving a tip to the person we are fine with seeking, and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask.”

Grammatical flub aside ("the person we are fine with seeking"), he is just saying that he doesn't want to say anything about the info being requested. The police release information that they have decided is in their interest to release. Everything else is classified confidential by default.

"Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask" implies that he can't hide and they know his name. A lie in other words.

implies that he can't hide

I agree with this.

and they know his name.

That is not implied anywhere at all.

That's a common tactic to try and get a suspect to turn themselves in.

Sometimes it works. (Most suspects turn themselves in for crimes they've committed. It's actually the exception when police need to go out to arrest a criminal suspect.)

That's when the suspect's identity is known, and the suspect would rather face a bail hearing then try to keep hiding.

Sure, for nonviolent criminal offenses. It helps that accepting responsibility for one's actions (as demonstrated by turning oneself in) generally results in significantly reduced sentencing.

For violent offenses, and especially for high-profile murder cases, they don't give the suspect the option of turning themselves in.

Police revealed that finding the 26-year-old was a complete surprise, and that they did not have his name on a list of suspects prior to today.

"I'd rather be lucky than good!" Impressive that they do seem to have found the right guy, based on the documents in his possession, and this was apparently due solely to the one photograph of his face that the police found and released.

I also note that this guy apparently had back surgery a few months ago.

I wonder if the McDonald's employee really recognized him from those couple of off-angle photos or if Mr. Mangione himself initiated the action in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward. It seems to me that he wanted to be caught, and the amount of evidence that he was carrying on him is obviously meant to establish his identity beyond any doubt. The amount of meticulous planning he undertook for the actual shooting contrasts with the trail of evidence that he kept dropping along the way. He would've basically never been found if he had just worn a pair of sunglasses.

or if Mr. Mangione himself initiated the action in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward.

this is a really interesting idea

Very - if he hates corporate elite than a random underpaid McDonalds employee getting 50K or 60K or whatever it is might line up with that

I thought it was a customer?

in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward.

Government rewards are always fake. They never pay out. Ever. The one guy who made it possible to catch Chapo is still "waiting" for his payout. If you're going to be a snitch, I guess you need to do it for the principle of the thing, there won't be any cash in your future.

https://github.com/lnmangione

Lol this has an extra badge it didn't have when i seen it an hour ago.

Because 16 people have starred his "Halite-III" repo

There's some _interesting_ issues being created: https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues

His followers count keeps going up every time I refresh. It’s not like he’ll be pushing commits for a while haha.

It's too bad: they really should give prisoners like this computers with some limited access so they can work on coding projects. What else are they going to do with their time, after all? Perhaps they could spend it contributing to open-source projects and helping society.

Part of prison is that you can't communicate to the external world without being monitored. Any shared code would also have to be reviewed. Even in Norway internet use is banned, except for educational purposes, which presumably limits you to wikipedia and .gov

That's understandable, but perhaps they could just give him an isolated PC, and let him pick some github projects he wants to clone, download those (after approval of course) and put them on the PC, let him work away on it for a while, perhaps allow periodic pulls from those repos, and then when he has something to contribute, give those to someone to review for anything disallowed (like a manifesto in the comments or whatever), and once they confirm it's just working source code, allow it to be contributed somehow to the project so they can accept it or not, understanding where it's coming from.

It would be a good project but you need people to review all code. I think effort/money could be spent on more pressing matters in this environment; open-source contribution is rather niche.

They could try teaching other inmates, or becoming the jailhouse lawyer.

People who are good at coding frequently aren't very good at teaching or lawyering.

Programming language inventor or serial killer?

https://vole.wtf/coder-serial-killer-quiz/

The funniest thing about the whole thing to me is that we have had privacy taken away or even voluntarily given it up to the police state in the name of security and then this guy randomly walks up and offs a member of the 1% and the only reason he got caught was because the feds got lucky.

No, because he was sloppy and lowered his mask...

It still came down to an old guy recognizing him in a McDonalds.

Which seems likely to have been due to said maskless photo.

Even then he might have escaped further notice if he'd ditched all the incriminating stuff. It's one thing to kind'a look like a guy in a low-quality pic; it's quite another to have the cops checking you out find all your murder gear with you.

Yeah, that part really surprised me too. He had advanced degrees and top grades, so he was clearly a smart guy, so why did he make such a dumb mistake that anyone who's watched a few murder mysteries would know not to do? Like some others have said, it seems like he probably wanted to get caught.

Doesn't really matter. Even if the cops didn't find anything on him they'd ID him for real, there's no point trying to hide after that.

Can cops "randomly" ID people in US?

Well, it's not really luck. It's exactly because there's cctv in enough places that they were able to get his photo from the one moment he lowered his mask at the hostel, but even more significantly that they were able to piece together his movements enough to be able to suspect that the guy at the hostel was the same one that carried out the shooting. Then it was a matter of distributing the photo and hope someone recognizes him. And offering the reward ofc. Very simple but not luck.

It still came to down to a crappy photo from a security cam and not the drones, internet surveillance, or facial recognition software in constant use against us.

This crime could have been solved the exact same way in the 1980s. The only difference being that the guy's picture would have been distributed over the 6 o'clock news instead of the internet.

Security cameras were not nearly as prevalent in the 80's.

With programmers, hackers, computer scientists, systems designers/engineers carrying some of the most privileged skillsets needed for designing and implementing replacements to systems of oppression (and disruptions to said systems), I've been wondering where the ones working to do this can be found.

I learned in Computer Ethics 101 about how the history of the development of radiological machines led to the realization that the ethical path to creating systems for our lives involves stopping using them when they accidentally/repeatedly harm.

I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this. Anyone else want to get together around these ideas to start designing?

This is the main reason I built https://chitchatter.im/. I hope to see it be used as a tool to safely organize around building a better world.

Thanks for this! Gonna ask around for help in evaluating it for security.

If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.

Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do, and they pay their doctors less and require less education from them.

This is particularly safer in America because the #1 thing voters hate is anyone doing anything new. If you ever try doing anything new you'll immediately get voted out. That's what happened after the ACA passed.

If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.

Sure. That's like telling me that if I want to win an Olympic gold medal, I should just do what Phelps does. It'll work, right?

Even those countries may only have metastable healthcare economics, and while it looks as if it works now it could fail in the future. In the short term.

Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do,

So you're saying that all we need to do is have more resources that we don't have more of?

The AMA artificially caps the number of doctors and hospitals we have to increase salaries and costs. So no it doesn't necessarily take more resources to do these things

They've backed off on that and I think support more residency slots for training doctors now, but it actually is a funding issue because Medicare pays for a lot of that.

We also have very high to impossible standards for training doctors, and our residency rotation program requires you to not sleep because it was designed by a literal coke addict.

Which is dumb because there’s plenty of money to pay the residents otherwise.

If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.

This is completely impossible. We're talking about America here: it's utterly impossible for America to look at other countries and just copy them. It doesn't matter how much sense it would make; if America has a choice between sticking with some brain-dead system (perhaps, a measurement system for instance), or adopting a very logical and sensible alternative that America didn't invent, America will stick with its own brain-dead system, and claim that the alternative somehow can't possibly work in America because America is "different" and "exceptional". The only way America will adopt something new and better is if it's invented in America.

The United States is #2 in the OECD for MRI machines per capita [1], with double that of France and nearly four times as many as Canada. Of the 38 nations of the OECD, only Japan has more MRI machines per person.

[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282401/density-of-magnet...

I was indeed thinking of Japan but didn't go look up any other countries.

Just expand Medicaid.. simple.

You’re on the right path my friend, hang on to the feeling that drove you to write this. Not everyone has it, and you may even find yourself having woken up with it missing one day. So use it while you have it

I have some ideas. randyselimi on Discord

I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this.

It seems like our entire system has been intentionally designed and refined over centuries specifically to ensure that nothing short of radical, even violent, acts will have any meaningful impact on those in power.

Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.

I sure hope that programmers, hackers, computer scientists, or systems designers/engineers find some means to improve the situation, and I'd certainly support the effort but I'm far from optimistic.

Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.

Exactly: look at the people behind the Ford Pinto (with the exploding gas tank), and more recently the people behind the Boeing 737MAX.

Philip Morris, DuPont, Philips Respironics, Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé, the list just goes on and on.

I hate to defend them, but at least with Philip Morris, they warn you outright that their products cause cancer, right on the package, yet people keep buying them anyway. (Yes, I know they had to be forced into this years ago by the government, but still that's better than Boeing where the government said their product was safe.)

Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds didn't put such labels on the foods they developed after buying major food companies in the 80s and applying their addiction tech to our diets.

I haven't fully fact checked this, but I have read that some of the same scientists the tobacco industry hired to fake research and lie to the public about the harms of smoking have been working as GRAS panelists tasked with convincing the FDA that food additives are totally safe. Seems like nothing could go wrong there.

He was carrying all of the evidence with him, including the fake ID he used at the hostel, the gun & suppressor, mask, and even a handwritten manifesto that points to his motivation. It seems he wanted to be found.

Exactly my thoughts as well. Every piece of evidence law enforcement has was basically intentionally provided by him. If he just stuffed his trash in one of his 7 pockets, or wore a pair of sunglasses, or didn't actually stare straight at the camera in the taxi like he was getting his school picture taken? I mean pretty much the only thing he failed to do was leave his business card at the crime scene.

But the calling card needs to be left the previous day.

Version 2.0 of this crime will feature the shooter having the forethought to have put a bitcoin wallet address on the front of his mask as he traipsed around in front of the cameras.

And boy howdy, the sparks will fly then

Before releasing the pictures authorities would redact the address.

I guess the next one can learn from this one and they will iteratively get better at not getting caught.

In the movie "Wag the Dog", Dustin Hoffman plays a Hollywood producer who is hired by the President to create a fake war to take attention away from another scandal. Spoiler alert Near the end, Hoffman's character is upset that the President's re-election is credited to something else instead of his handiwork. Even when told he's risking his life if he says anything, he yells "I want the credit!". I think a similar psychology may be at work in this and other crimes that become (in)famous.

I _think_ what you're getting at is saying the suspect wants the credit, in response to the parent saying the next one will be better at evasion by learning from his mistakes, right? And implying the next one might not want to evade either? I have no speculation here just looking for clarification on the movie reference.

It would be interesting to see if he's banking on jury nullification being within the Overton window...

Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.

I don't think he was banking on that, but I thought it interesting that posts about jury nullification were all over the front page on Reddit today, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1haimhk/til_... and https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1haejf4...

maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is

maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is

It’s typically asked about. If you know about it and lie, that’s perjury.

It's sometimes asked about whether you'd follow the evidence - people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is.

As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.

One weird trick to avoid jury duty for the rest of your life?

that and share the statistics on eye witness testimony reliability.

In the one case I sat on the jury for the judge told us that we had to follow their directions exactly as to how to interpret the law when making a sentence. We were informed we not allowed to choose a lighter charge (options were misdemeanor assault, assault and aggravated assault).

Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.

Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.

Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered

Why is that? Was it just the sentencing phase?

Do you have a cite for it being legal for jurors to ignore jury instructions and orders from the Court?

Is it also legal for jurors to ignore orders not to discuss the case, post about deliberations on Facebook, or decide the case based on race?

I don't unfortunately, that would be buried somewhere in federal codes.

Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.

My question was rhetorical. Instructions ARE an order. Willful failure to comply is contempt.

The issue is that proving why a juror voted a certain way is kind of tough. The beautiful part is that this is a feature, not a bug.

A juror can't be punished for their decision, ever. It doesn't matter whether a juror keeps their reasoning a secret or not.

Its interesting you meant that rhetorically, your premise is wrong in my opinion. If you want to distinguish between an instruction and an order I'd think it has to be based on how it can be enforced. An instruction can't be enforced by a judge, for example they can instruct you to only consider what was presented but they can't punish you if you disobey that.

Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.

Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.

The judge, prosecution and defense get to vet each juror by asking them about their beliefs and biases. They can reject jurors if they believe the juror is unable to hear a case without being impartial. Jurors (often) won't be told the details of the case they'll be hearing while they're being vetted, only the basic details (e.g. defendant is a white male accused of murdering another white male).

In extremely high profile cases like the ones featuring Donald Trump, courts focus on selecting jurors who can remain fair and impartial despite their knowledge of the case or their own personal opinions. They'll go through extensive vetting which can include written questionnaires, interviews, oral questioning about their media consumption, their political beliefs and potential biases, and so on.

They don't actually verify any of this and you can just lie. One of the chauvin jurors lied about being an activist.

That sounds more like a failure of the prosecution in the Chauvin trial, rather than an assumption we can make about all trials.

It’s not. American judges, generally speaking, hate jury nullification with the strength of a thousand suns. They are petty little tyrants.

Maybe he saw how the world basically thought he was an amazing hero and he wanted to let people know who he really is.

Indeed, when the alternative was to be a nobody, on the lam, for the rest of his life.

How so? All he had to do was continue to fly under the radar for a few more weeks until everyone forgot about it. Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.

Murder is hard on your soul. He wouldn't be able to go back to life as usual.

If I nonjudgmentally assumed you speak from personal experience, doesn't it also depend on the person, their sensitivity, vulnerabilities etc.?

I have a 3.5 year old toddler and it sure feels hard on my soul right now (he just behaved the worst he's ever behaved in daycare today, to the point that they had to isolate him... and this is me dealing with it after only 3 hours of sleep, since he also keeps waking up every night ever since he turned 3... "sleep regression" should be called "slow parricide via toddler non-sleep")

It gets better.

It may take until their adult brain forms around the age of 23, though.

he just behaved the worst he's ever behaved in daycare today

I'm sorry, maybe it's not my place, but... Please listen to him. Children are not stupid, they just lack experience. If he behaves some way then there is a reason for it. The usual suspect is lack of attention (which is very important for a child), since they get more of it (even if in form of punishment) for behaving "badly"... The outcome is predictable.

I found that treating them as adults when it comes to respecting their wishes goes a long way towards raising a good person.

Again, sorry for an unsolicited advice from a random person on the internet. Especially as it sounds like life is very stressful for you right now. Fingers crossed everything gets better soon.

We already do that, but maybe even more is necessary. The problem is that I'm 52 and already had sleep apnea/CPAP, she is 49, and my son is 3. Every day is an exhausting marathon.

Please consider reading this book. It changed my life:

    Wahlgren, Anna (2009). A Good Night's Sleep - This is how you can truly help your baby to sleep through the night. Anna Wahlgren AB. ISBN 9789197773614

I'm saying this as a father who was going through the worst time of my life as my baby daughter's top 3 records for "most sleep in one night" was 5 hours (which only happened that one time), 3 hours (which only happened that one other time), and then never ever more than 2 sleep cycles of 45 minutes on any day/night.

Sleep deprivation makes your life so miserable. And it does so for the toddler as well. My daughter couldn't learn to walk and kept falling over because, well, she was just too exhausted.

It seems the book isn't as well known in the US (where I'm assuming you are) as it is in Europe, and maybe there are equivalent approaches from American authors as well. But this is the one that solved the problem and taught her to sleep in 4 - four - nights.

My wife and I applied the stuff from the book from Dec.1st to Dec.4th of 2018. My daughter has not had trouble sleeping her 11+ hours straight a single night since then (that was 6 years ago) except a couple of times when she was teething.

I was recently asked on a (business) podcast what was the top book that changed my life and that was it. To think you could struggle for such a long time, and suddenly find out you could change that in 4 days... I have tears in my eyes whenever I talk about it.

Anyway. Long message to wish you well, internet stranger. It will get better.

Well don’t leave us hanging, what was the stuff that worked for you?

I looked up this book on Amazon.

"Paperback: From $473"

Yikes. :/

Can't find an ebook of it either...

Willing to sell it or pass it along? (Best Christmas ever? lol)

Thank you for the kind thoughts regardless. It really is a struggle, to say the least.

That CEO didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people

They're not going to hire for a healthcare CEO with high empathy. I mean, think of the shareholders!

It's like profit is at odds with taking care of the patients. Who would have thought.

The rich don’t just let go of murder investigations.

Another way to think of it would be, how much would it cost for a very rich family or person to hire few people to hunt you for the following 10 years.

So far the record indicates he was better at hunting them than they him.

Is there a word for these types of snarky quips that trigger off a single word but fail to address the point?

I feel like I'm seeing them more and more.

The killer didn't do any hunting. They did shooting and running.

I think this might actually be it - he may have been motivated in some part by fame (but planned to be anonymous and get away with it) and after the hugely positive online response decided to purposely get caught.

Trial for this could be hugely publicized

I'm real interested in how a trial goes. Can you even find enough people in America who haven't been bent over by insurance to form an unbiased jury? I find it hard to imagine any jury would convict him.

I keep seeing this take, and it seems pretty bizarre to me. Most Americans rate their health insurance as excellent or good [1], and even of the ones that don't, most probably don't support murdering health insurance executives on the street.

They won't have trouble seating a jury, and he'll be convicted of 1st degree homicide and spend the rest of his adult life in prison.

1. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve...

This is wildly unrealistic.

Many people have not been bent over by insurance, but that's the less confusing part of this post.

Almost everyone who has been bent over by insurance will still find someone who assassinated another dude guilty.

I generally agree but think it’ll depend on how sympathetic his case is and what defense he tries. I believe New York juries have to reach a unanimous decision and if he had one of those insurance horror stories it wouldn’t be unheard of for at least one juror to feel sympathetic to, say, a provocation defense and only find him guilty of lesser charges.

Not guilty must also be unanimous. If the jurors can’t agree it’ll be retried. Usually lone holdouts capitulate.

Yes, as I said the mostly likely outcome is guilty but it wouldn’t shock me if, say, he wasn’t convicted on every charge. Juries introduce a human element and the response to this murder illustrates how many people really hate insurance companies. Something over 10% of Americans say they know someone who died due to denied care, which is a big enough number that I wouldn’t rule anything out.

Anyone who has been bent over by insurance will not be selected for the jury.

Isn't that a reverse conflict of interest? That way you are deliberately selecting people that are more/less sympathetic than a baseline of the US population.

It's not as if "he was mistreated by an insurer" is a defence, is it? That should be entirely irrelevant to the jury's finding, although sentencing might take it into account. The jury just needs to decide if he did it, so not having been mistreated by an insurer shouldn't preclude someone from making that decision.

If that's the case, you make a call to a reporter — and then walk into a police station to surrender to authorities.

I mean if he's giving himself up, why not gift a mcdonald's employee 60k?

I can't help but think of another nyc shooter, Frank James, who was also caught at a McDonald's after turning himself in.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/search-new-york-subway-gunm...

Only if you have no sense for drama.

That's not this guy.

Drama has too often allowed the suspect to be shot on sight.

I’m sure the police have orders to “take him alive.”

It doesn’t matter what the brass say when giving orders. If the officer says the magic words during debriefing (after the shooting), he gets off scott free.

What are the magic words? I don’t know them, but I know that the lawyers who work for police unions know them and the trainers who train police officers drill those into the heads of officers.

The core problem with the jurisprudence: if a reasonable officer had a fear for themself or for members of the public, then fatal shootings in the line of duty are usually justified. The objective facts at the scene don’t matter; only the officer’s perception. If only all citizens were given the same rights…

They have body cams don't they? If they just shoot a suspect and the body cam suggests no threat to the officer's life, they're in trouble.

The only part I don't get now is the cell phone

I assumed he had some help with the timing via the burner phone

But this all looks very lone wolfish now

I still don't get how he knew where the guy would be

If you're a shareholder you get a postcard in the mail with the time and address of public meetings.

But not "he will leave the building at this 30 second interval. As needed for a walk up on a busy city street that is well policed.

Yeah, the timing is a question I still have. At first it sounded like he was only there a few minutes before the CEO appeared. Later information sounds like he might have been hanging around outside for longer. I haven't seen a knowledgable evaluation of how plausible it is that he would have known where Thompson was going to be based only on public information.

Yes, how do you know the whereabouts of a CEO?

Maybe he was planning to do another.

Agreed. He seems to be smart enough to never be caught. Could just be the need to be liked/famous/known. On the other hand, he might not have expected to be noticed by someone who knew him. That's a real 0.01% you can't predict in your perfect planning.

He doesn't seem smart at all... He took off his mask in front of a camera to flirt with a receptionist. He left a long extensive trail of evidence. He manifesto sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. It only took him four days to get caught. Like most criminals, he is not smart.

It’s very difficult to not get caught in a total over militarized surveillance state. He is not stupid

Less than 50% of murders are solved these days[1]. If he hadn't been carrying around all of the evidence and was more careful with the mask he very well may have gotten away with it, the NYPD had no clue who or where he was

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

Most murderers don't target the capitalist elite though.

Do you honestly believe all crimes are equally investigated with the same diligence and budget like in a tv show?

I don’t think so, per article:

He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania.

Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.

I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.

Probably hadn't really thought through the specifics of tossing evidence.

Bodies of water are popular for disposing of things, because it's a huge PITA to find things there. Imagine how hard it might be in a large local pond, and then multiply that in complexity for a rather big river. Or an inland sea like the Great Lakes. Don't even multiply for those; it's a stupidly big irrelevant number.

He says in the manifesto that they won't take him alive. He planned to go out shooting, then wimped out.

_Alleged_ manifesto. We still don't know if it's real.

including the fake ID he used at the hostel

I've stayed at that place multiple times, though years ago.

They did check ID, but never copied it.

I wonder how they knew it was fake.

Do they record names of guests? It would take two seconds to ask the NJ DMV if someone by that name exists. If they don't, then the ID was probably fake. If there is someone by that name, showing the real ID photos to the hostel receptionist would quickly clear up whether the ID is fake or not. The receptionist flirted with him and got him to show his face so there's a good chance she'd be able to look at some photos and say whether any of them look like the guy.

Last time I was there they wouldn't even record NJ.

They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.

The place had cameras everywhere apart from inside rooms and bathrooms.

I can't believe that was the only time they got him on camera.

Once the police traced the suspect to the hostel, wouldn't they check the relevant IDs?

What ID?

The hostel had none. They never copied it.

They never wrote ID numbers either.

They checked the name and that was it.

Unless it changed in the last year or so.

Or the most obvious case of setup ever.

Jury nullification!

seems he wanted to be found

He was presumably en route somewhere. Disposing of a fake ID such that forensics can’t get anything useful off it isn’t easily done on the run / incognito. (And if his inspiration is the Unabomber, he presumably had more targets.)

Surely you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right? Not to mention if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something…

you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right

You're going to take time away from your actual escape to make yourself less incriminating in case you are caught? Should he have been grinding up IDs at the Greyhound bus terminal in New York? Right after the whole city heard about the shooting? Or should he have waited until after the FBI plastered the nation with his face?

if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something

Scissors won't take care of fingerprints, let alone DNA. As for the lighter, again, where do you propose he do this without attracting attention?

Actually, I could see him having thought this would be easy to do, maybe even packing a lighter and scissors, only to realise in execution that you can't start burning IDs on a bus without someone noticing.