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 won’t get a death sentence 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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
> “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”.
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”.
> 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.
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.
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.
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. You're absolutely right: It's likely that we are the weird bubble outside of everyone else.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
