So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.

agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.

the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.

As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.

it's not that the government didn't sanction it, it's that there was no due process of law. What you argue for here is essentially mob justice, and that is a very dangerous thing. whether it's the government or some other system, there always must be due process before carrying out a sentence.

So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.

agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.

the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.

As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.

it's not that the government didn't sanction it, it's that there was no due process of law. What you argue for here is essentially mob justice, and that is a very dangerous thing. whether it's the government or some other system, they're always must be due process before carrying out a sentence.

So is refusing to provide products you were paid to provide, especially when that product is meant to reduce/remove literal human suffering. As in, that is also murder as it directly leads to a dead person in many cases from inability to gain treatment.

agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.

the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.

As you are clearly pro-death penalty then the only reason this is immoral is that the government didn't get to pull the switch. Which is pure bootlicker logic.

it's not that the government didn't sanction it, it's that there was no due process of law. will you argue for here is essentially mob justice, and that is a very dangerous thing. whether it's the government or some other system, they're always must be due process before carrying out a sentence.

agreed, which is why the company should have been taken to court. the CEO being murdered doesn't change United Health's shitty practices, it's just catharsis for one person who had enough.

the only change this event will have on the industry will be that they tighten up security. in doing so, they will be looking for more money to spend which means they will be squeezing more out of their customers through their exact same shitty practices.