Bullets used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO had words written on them, law enforcement official says
Bullets used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO had words written on them, law enforcement official says
Brian Thompson, 50, was killed in a “premeditated, preplanned targeted attack,” police said.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
"The motive remains unclear" is one of those things that, as a journalist, you know you have to write because it is absolutely the truth, but you hate yourself for every letter of every word because you know how fucking stupid it sounds given the circumstances.
"I mean, there are millions of people with motive. Which one in particular we will hopefully never know"
I feel like this is going to end like Murder on the Orient Express, where...
Tap for spoiler
... it turns out that literally everyone took turns shooting him.
Deny that you know or even saw them. Defend them if they do get caught, through protest, fundraising, bail, etc. Depose those who put them in jail if they are sentenced.
Unless it turns out he was murdered by, for example, an irate shareholder who didn't make the money he wanted to make.
There is more than one reason he could have been murdered.
Murder bingo, murder scavenger hunt, time traveler trying to stop the future apocalypse no lack of options....
Are you really suggesting that only possible realistic motive to murder him is because of his position at UHC?
I can think of so many plausible scenarios. I just gave you one, here's another: he was cheating on his wife, so she paid to have him killed, something that actually happens in the real world and doesn't involved time travelers.
I'm sure you would like this to be a just world where bad people get killed for good reasons, but that's not how the world works. Hitler's generals tried to assassinate him and it wasn't because they thought he was being too mean to the Jews.
Are you really suggesting
nope, just toying around with the concept, figured it would be about 3/5 on the joke scale.
edit: Though if you really wanted to get into it, the words scribed on the casings might direct you to a likely solution. *
Or the words on the casings are intended to direct you to the wrong solution. Because, again in the real world, people who commit premeditated crimes throw police off the scent intentionally.
Ehh, I think Occam would have the better of that here.
In any case. (no pun intended) Maybe they'll spend a few minutes reflecting on the own mortality while they're ripping us off thinking there's no recourse.
Ehh, I think Occam would have the better of that here.
Would you say the same about this?
People commit crimes and then pin the blame on someone else literally every day. It's like the easiest way to try to get away with a crime.
The concept of the Razor is that it's a guide to likelyhood. You cannot prove it right or wrong and you certainly can't disprove it with even a substantial list of unrelated cases of false flags.
We're both speaking firmly from conjecture, and neither of us has any substantial evidence.
We’re both speaking firmly from conjecture, and neither of us has any substantial evidence.
Yes, that was my point.
Ah yes. "The murderer must be playing 5d chess to fool people" angle. It's an angle, but not a reasonable one. How much Scooby Doo have you watched?
Possible vs Probable.
Lots of things are possible, sure, but his position and impact on people due to his position does make one very probable.
I am guessing you do not know enough about him personally to know what is the most probable. Maybe he very openly cheats on his wife. That would make his wife hiring a hit man very probable. Maybe he's swindled someone out of a ton of money on a personal level rather than via UHC. Again, that would make a good motive to kill him.
We do not have enough information here and pretending we do is not very wise.
He MAYBE fucked around on his one wife causing embarrassment.
He CERTAINLY fucked around with THOUSANDS of people causing DEATH.
It's worthwhile to consider alternatives but it's unwise to paint all scenarios as equally likely.
It's also unwise to come to a conclusion when the person who did it hasn't even been identified.
I don't think most people have strictly concluded anything, they've just acknowledged the a significant probability.
You're on a semantic crusade.
People are sure acting like they have strictly concluded it.
I'm entirely empathetic to your position.
Internet conversation is intrinsically imperfect. The contract of semantics isn't sufficient.
I think in so many senses of the word, you're right. Technically right. But not practically responding to the practical intention of the communication.
True, it's possible he has numerous enemies.
But what I can say is the average person doesn't have people wanting to kill them. If all things are equal, and given the message written on the casings, there seems to be one that is currently the most probable.
Obviously there are many plausible scenarios, but one of them scales significantly differently than the others.
If there are many plausible scenarios, even if one is the most plausible, it's silly to assume that's the one.
It's only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.
If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.
If I see Zebras, I'll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I'm wrong all the fucking time, being right isn't part of my identity.
But until then, if someone says "what do figure those hoofbeats are?" I'm not going to say "50/50 horses or zebras"
Assumptions are claimed to be established facts. That's what an assumption is. You're making a claim of fact without having the evidence.
Established facts do come with proof. That's how they are established to be fact. You'll notice a suspicious avoidance of the word "fact" in the definition you posted.
Sorry, are you under the bizarre impression that 'true' and 'fact' are different things?
No.
But if you preface them with qualifiers that means something, no? Are those words meaningless embellishment or are they intended to provide additional meaning, and if so, what?
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
This means it's being regarded as true for the purposes of a context. "Hypothetical" is another term which would be useful here. But you're being probably needlessly pedantic about this. I think everyone can agree that there are millions of people his company has harmed who thus have motive to do this, and at the same time other motives are quite possible. Maybe he broke up with the guy who shot him. Maybe he was part of an international zebra smuggling ring. Maybe it was just completely random, but fate just happened to land on someone who really deserved it. Maybe the total lack of accountability in our justice system finally drove someone over the edge.
Don't feed the troll.
No, that's not what it means. You are redefining it. Hypothetical would be fine though.
But... thats the literal copy-pasted dictionary definition. I'm so confused here.
Absolutely, hence why they do have to say that the motive is unclear. While we all have strong theories about why this happened, there are plenty of other possibilities that have to be considered. Could have been taken out by his family for insurance money, could have been a business rival, the guy might have gotten in shit with the mob. At this point they just don't know.
The impression I got from when I lived in the US is that at his level, US oligarchs generally don't like getting their hands dirty and there are strong communal disincentives to disrespecting "honour among thieves" laws. All the oligarchs groups will gang up on you if you use direct violence against another oligarch.
From what I've read, the "mob" in the US largely has no power, definitely nothing on the level of Brian Thompson. Even transnational groups (Mexican cartels, EU gangs, central American gangs) keep a low profile in the US and make a concentrated effort to avoid publicity.
I will admit, family issues is a possibility. Difficult to say. The business rivalry or mob connection doesn't seem even in the realm of possibility, but I could be wrong.
Exactly. We just don't have enough information yet and it is just silly to assume this is some sort of just world where people behind atrocities that are subsequently murdered are murdered because of those atrocities.
He wrote Deny, defend, depose on the bullets. That's him speaking the language that the insurance industry uses. I would say that broadly, we know his motive. Who the company denied a claim for is the only real question here.
As I said to someone else, do you really believe this was done by pro-Palestine activists?
It is silly to make assumptions based on three words. It's especially silly to assume someone isn't smart enough to make police think they're not the guilty party.
No I don't think it has anything to do with Palestine, and everything to do with this book
He switched delay to depose to send a clear message to the insurance industry. That message being, "there's a fourth step that you fuckers have forgotten in your three step strategy."
Maybe you should have at least read the name of the URL. I didn't say that this has anything to do with Palestine.
Please, if you're not going to read the article, at least read the name of the URL and then respond to me accordingly.
I see what you are asking now. I can absolutely see that could be someone who was pro-palestinian setting ballot boxes on fire. It could be a false flag, but I'm not convinced either way.
This guy didn't have a good familiarity with his weapon. If he had test fired before he killed the CEO, he would have known that the spring on the gun was too strong for the ammo he was carrying and been able to swap one of the two out for a cleaner hit. That fact alone pretty much rules out a hired hitman. I'm no hitman, and I have much better familiarity with all my weapons than this guy seems to have had with his.
You can hire someone who has never fired a gun before in their life to kill someone else. Which is also something that has happened before. People do things like pay their cousins to commit murder. And the person who gets paid can be really, really stupid.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/lynnwood-man-gets-life-sentence-for-botched-murder-for-hire/
If that were the case writing the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" on the bullet casings was a pretty stupid move, given that it calls attention to the atrocities said shareholder profits from. It seems most likely that the motive is exactly what the bullet casings suggest.
Which is exactly why someone would do it to make the police think it wasn't for another reason.
Really, I have no idea why all of you assume a criminal will say, "yep! It's me!"
For some very weird reason it never crossed my mind, and I really do not know why, that I could invest in a huge healthcare corporation whose target it is to provide as little healthcare as possible. But your comment made me think about that that is possible to do.
“It is still unclear which of the potential motives caused the man to pull the trigger”
“deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”
He literally left the manifesto there and they can't figure it out.
He left "A" manifesto. I have never dealt with his company,but if I was hired to kill him I would most definately make look like a disgruntled parent if a dead kid or some such.
Hopefully he(another common assumption) never gets caught and we never know.
Nah, that's a cop out. They could absolutely find somebody speculating on the motive to quote if they wanted to.
Yeah, just put a random tweet in like they usually do
"The motive remains unclear"
Was it him that got denied, or was it a recently deceased family member?
There's several options.
That seems like terrible wording. Why not just say the motive is unconfirmed with the suspect if that's what's needed to state it as fact?