This is a genuine question.

I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.

P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.

And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.

    • yokonzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      It sounds rough to say, but I genuinely think this is part of a new American revolution, the people have had enough. It shows, I’m not saying we should go out and kill execs, but I am saying I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that happens.

      Let me ask counter OP, say a full out rebellion occurred against the corporate oligarch class, ten years from now we have had a bloody and violent change from people who felt they had no other recourse. It was unpleasant but now we are in a society where the general public is much better off and it was generally remembered as a “war on corporate corruption” and the rich are much less willing to tread on their fellow man

      In this pretend scenario the killers are now labeled freedom fighters, and public opinion is that it was a necessary overthrow of an unjust system. How would you realistically feel about the man now? I believe it’s all about societal context, and and the line between justice and a slaying does tend to blur after a certain, very extreme point has been crossed.

      Now In reality, has that point been crossed yet? I don’t know, that’s yet to be determined, but I feel we will know sooner or later

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        It’s not even a hypothetical.

        In the past workers used to kidnap and kill CEOs, we ended up with worker rights and a higher standard of living.

        That stopped, and things slipped away.

        Hopefully it’s starting again.

        • mke_geek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          18 days ago

          That’s a disgusting attitude. No one should be murdered because people don’t like their profession.

          How would you like it if someone murdered you because they didn’t like your job?

          • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 days ago

            Nobody is being murdered for their profession. Choices are what people have a problem with. Choose to exploit the masses for the shareholders long enough and someone is going to pop off.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            No one? What if your profession is being a guard at Auschwitz? Is it “disgusting” to say that the SS deservered to die based on their profession?

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      19 days ago

      This is justice.

      How? His victims get nothing; his money goes to his family now. The chances of Thompson actually paying for the damages he caused went from nearly zero to literally zero.

      While I feel no sympathy for his death, I don’t think that there’s any justice in this. His rich family just got a little bit richer (or will, once his estate is processed). And now United gets to negotiate a new, lower pay plan for a replacement CEO, so they get to pocket even more money going forward. The people who came out ahead in this are not those victimized by Thompson’s company, but those directly in his circle.

      It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        It was justice because he can no longer harm others.

        There was zero chance he was ever going to pay for shit before, so nothing has changed after.

        Likewise his assets can still be seized after death, but like previously mentioned it was never going to happen, so it’s irrelevant.

        Justice could have been greater, forcing him to spend his life in restitution. This is an acceptable (and actually likely to happen) form of it.

        • Chozo@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          18 days ago

          It was justice because he can no longer harm others.

          Sure but he, alone, was not the one who harmed his patients. Realistically, he’s probably never even seen a patient’s file and likely couldn’t identify one if you asked him to. While he was the CEO and officially signs off on what the company does, the company is much more than just him. He will be replaced, and easily; likely before next week is even over. And everybody who enabled him and followed him and carried out his orders will continue to conduct the company as they have before.

          IMO, justice for victims involves a positive effect; either through policy reform, repayments, etc. The victims aren’t suddenly going to get their claims approved now; they’re in the same situation today as they were yesterday. This is a wholly lateral move for them.

          • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            Claim denials went up something like 17% under his 3 year tenure. He absolutely personally had blood on his hands.

      • quixotic120@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        18 days ago

        What you say makes sense but when people can see that there are decades of precedent for what you describe literally never happening it becomes much more understandable that people start to conflate vigilantism and murder with justice.

        If the system consistently fails to provide consequences for an elite class at the expense of an entire generation what options are left? If you fail to stop a child from poking a dog you can’t really blame the dog for biting the child; you fucked up by failing to provide consequences at any point before the situation blew up.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 days ago

        It’s an injustice, if anything. Thompson should have had his assets seized and returned to his victims, but now that opportunity is gone forever.

        Do you believe it’d have ever come? Even if he was prosecuted for anything his victims weren’t gonna get a cent.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        The rule of law already works selectively, we’d just prefer it works selectively for us instead of them.