Summary
Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.
The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.
Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.
No, it’s because they are immensely fearful of admitting the reason because they know a lot of other people would agree and it would potentially upset the status quo so much. And that would be bad for their masters.
Especially if it turned out to be contagious.
No it’s because we don’t know what his motive was.
It’s because they literally don’t know who killed him yet. You don’t have to come up with a silly conspiracy theory when the obvious answer is that they don’t know who killed him yet and they don’t know why he was killed yet.
Someone who does bad things can be killed for other reasons. John Lennon was not assassinated for beating and otherwise abusing his wives and girlfriends. The guy who killed Jeffrey Dahmer in prison did it because he thought, but wasn’t sure, that Dahmer poked him in the back.
You say that as though the media doesn’t throw in their opinion constantly without being sure.
Imo it’s better journalism to point out what everyone is thinking and point out it’s not confirmed yet.
The media absolutely does that. And they should not. But a bunch of pundits speculating is apparently something people enjoy watching and reading, so they do it anyway.
I’m not sure why you think just because the media does it, it’s a good thing.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, I’m saying it’s funny how they don’t do it now isn’t it?
I don’t really care. They suck ass. That doesn’t mean people here should be doing it.
No but imo there is value in pointing out the hypocrisy.
I don’t believe in being as civil as possible when your opponent is trying to be as uncivil as possible.
Okay, but this really has nothing to do with what I’m talking about, which is that it is silly to assume this is definitely retribution over UHC.
It’s silly to assume but reasonable to mention as a likely possibility. So I guess I never disagreed :)