Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A couple of theories:

- person clearly had meticulously planned the execution of the hit and exfiltration. Even leaving red herrings on his way out of the city (backpack full of Monopoly money). Yet clumsily keeps _all_ of the evidence that would implicate himself in this murder. Not to mention he is wandering about in public while a multi-state manhunt is underway with the full weight of alphabet soup agencies, and state and local LEOs? To me, this suggests it was part of his plan to get caught. There was no escape to a non-extradition country. The “shaking” mentioned while talking with police could just be a massive surge of adrenaline as he sees his plan unfold before his eyes. Then use the live streamed and televised court to spread his message. Then live out the rest of his life as a political figure as the media continue to analyze this persons life and motivations. Just like Ted.

- Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence. It was really just dumb luck that he even escaped NYC. At that point, he was just improvising after leaving NYC. His arrogance to keep the evidence as some sick mementos or trophies ultimately did him in. Likely try to plead insanity with the manifesto. Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.






This looks like a case of "suicide by revolution". Various media reports (including this one) suggest that he had a back injury in 2023, has not worked since 2023, started losing touch with friends in 2023, has been reading books about back injuries and chronic pain, etc. If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live. Likely he's been seeking medical treatment for his injury, his insurer is United Health, they've done nothing but "delay, deny, defend", he's already decided that he's better off dead, and he might as well take the CEO of the health insurer with him.

When I heard about the Monopoly money I wondered if it matched up with the amount of a specific denied claim.

> If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live

I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping away at the actual vertebrae) in addition to clamping my nerve roots shut. I had emergency surgery in my neck in early 2018. Prior to the thoracic spine injury, I was in the best shape of my life; very muscular and healthy with a 6-pack like you see in Luigi's pictures.

It's been an absolute miserable experience for the last 8 years. Being gaslighted by doctors before and after my surgery didn't help. Insurance tried to deny my emergency surgery at first despite the fact I lost all sensation from the neck down almost overnight. When you're dealing with trauma and the system works against you, very dark thoughts start to form. I'm not going to say I condone what Luigi did, but if you think people go through these events and don't think those thoughts on many occasions, you're so very wrong. There's a HUGE range of emotions that comes with it all. Suicide was definitely one of them for a long time as well. I have a wife and kids though and do not wish to burden them further by adding to the list of problems. They're the only things that's kept me going strong this whole time.


I'm sorry you've gone through that and I hope your condition improves. While I don't know the specifics of your case, in general there aren't a lot of real solid evidence-based medicine guidelines for treating back pain or injuries. Ask 10 different physicians and you'll get 10 different treatment plans. Surgery has made many patients worse in the long run. Obviously there are some traumatic injuries where emergency surgery is medically necessary, but for most patients the standard of care should be physical therapy first with surgery being a high-risk last resort.

https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/


You can't get approved for surgery without PT in many cases anyway, so by default, most people will have to undergo PT regardless. In a lot of cases, you still can't get surgery; insurance will request pain management via injections and stuff before approving surgery. In my case, I had to go through 6 weeks of PT, then insurance asked me to do another 6 weeks after the first 6 failed to produce benefits. PT accelerated my decline because they didn't understand the mechanics in my case, so it's not always beneficial either. Also some of those conservative treatments (injections) are still being denied by insurance. My dad recently went to get another series of injections and was denied because they didn't think it would be medically beneficial despite the fact that he improved significantly from the first set and it lasted over 6 months.

Unfortunately there's a huge variance in PT quality and skill levels, so just because 6 weeks of PT doesn't produce results doesn't necessarily mean that a different approach to PT wouldn't be better than surgery. Seriously, have you tried visiting a McGill Method Master Clinician? I would certainly try that before letting a surgeon cut on me. Watch the video I linked above and see if it might be relevant.

What sort of injections are you referring to? Corticosteroid injections can sometimes be helpful in the short term but clinical practice guidelines discourage prolonged use due to the risk of bone damage and other severe side effects. So insurers aren't necessarily wrong to deny payment for those.


Spinal problems are definitely on the list why seemingly "not terminally ill" people might want to take the option of euthanasia. Healthy imbeciles will scream with outrage "it's a sin, one must keep them alive at all costs" but that's because it's not them tortured 24/7 but other guy. And people are able to do monstrous things to other people without as much as loosing a night sleep.

Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.

If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.

I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.


"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

As I get older, I understand this phrase more and more.


I've learned that most people don't consider themselves to be "bad" or "malicious" overall. People will earnestly espouse opinions of arbitrary quality, with unknown justification and intent, and expect others to agree with them. They don't consider that they may be speaking out of severe lack of empathy or knowledge (Gell-Mann amnesia!). We're extremely limited and oftentimes we don't even recognize it.

I mean, prison might help take care of his back problem more than a health insurance company would.

> I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it

Same here, except I’ve had it since ~2000 (mid-teenager). Anytime a suggested treatment makes it to insurance, they deny it because “it’s extremely uncommon for back problems of someone your age to be in the thoracic spine.” They’ll gladly pay for unnecessary surgeries on the lumbar, but refuse even many diagnostic attempts in the thoracic area.


I can understand the symbolism here between the backpack of game money then.

I haven’t gotten all the details, but something like this makes sense. It was a personal vendetta from a person out of desperation/frustration.

I guess as more details come out we will know


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.

Life in prison is just a delayed death sentence.

A "delayed death sentence" is awful if you if you have chronic pain and are seeking suicide by revolution.

I dont think the two are equivalent


Death by suicide is entirely attainable in prison, if desired.

so what? that still doesn't mean that life in prison is the same as suicide.

Correct. I'm asserting life in prison and a death sentence are functionally identical. (In the US.)

Both can be ended via suicide, if the inmate so chooses.


Death sentence is often seen as better because you might get an individual cell, and copious pro bono appeals for your case.

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.


Life outside prison is also a delayed 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.


But not as bad of a sentence, since you're not in prison.

life anywhere is just a delayed death sentence...

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.


nostrademons says >"Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial."<

which seems pretty far-fetched to me.

But poster ablation earlier spoke of the:

"toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising." on ZeroHedge."

Is HN immune to what happened to Zerohedge? Some of the posts here are pretty speculative, to put it mildly.


What happened to Zerohedge?

> 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.)


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”.


> “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”.


A lot would say "yes" though. It doesn't have to be something major.

My wife's eye exam was scheduled a day early. Denied, though I'm not that annoyed over $250.


That's over 30 hours of work for a very large portion of the population.

It is a significant amount of money/effort for many, yes.

Originally I said I wasn't going on a shooting spree over it and edited it. Maybe I should have left it after all.


> 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.


>The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."

What prevents the juror answering "no", and then acting precisely on this belief?


> I wouldn't be shocked if he walks.

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.


> the overwhelming consensus was hero

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.

Trump just got voted in.

By ~50% of voters, not 99%. More people agree on this than do on cat pics being cute.

> Trump just got voted in.

So? You'd be surprised by what many of them think about insurance companies CEOs.


Had a similar experience. All our guests at a dinner party were hoping he would escape.

Probably they were no true scotsmen either

>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.


> Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?

By having a filtering process before the jury is empanelled to identify that.


Good luck with that...

> ... I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one.

Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?


> Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?

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.


They will ensure the selection of the absolute dumbest and most docile jurors possible to prevent this outcome.

Doesn't the defense also get a say on the juror selection?

I was thinking suckers, but I guess it's the same thing.

He could have planned to have a shootout and suicide-by-cop but that didn't happen. I was genuinely surprised that they took him alive.

Where he'll get treatment on the taxpayer dime?

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.


Don't misunderstand me, I think it's fine he gets the treatment he needs to resolve his pain.

It should have happened without death, is all.


In this case it's the specific irony of not being able to afford healthcare unless separated from society.

my money's on him being "suicided" with the cameras off before a public trial can take place...

I dont think so, but it wouldn't surprise me.

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.


Your point is well made. If someone shoots you in a trailer park or the hood, nobody is launching a nationwide manhunt.

I redact my previous comment but leave it for posterity.


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.


Honestly, if he were me, I may feel the same way.

It wouldn't be the first time the police/three letters agencies lie about how they identified/located a suspect to not leak potentially illegal surveillance processes


and its looking like they jumped the gun on brian kohberger. they keep delaying the trial; i would not be surprised if he goes free.

Agree but doesn't explain why he would be carrying so much incriminating stuff around with him.

My theory is that he wasn’t done assassinating CEOs.

It’s the obvious answer as to why he still had the gun on him.


Assuming this (now deleted) post outlining his justification was indeed penned by the killer, he clearly had a motive to kill UH’s CEO but not others.

https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...


All evidence points towards this being post being fake.

That’s correct this was fake. Ken Klippenstein published the real one.

source?

Given the wealth of Luigi Mangione's family, if he's the killer, this sounds unlikely to be penned by him (or at least his own story).

Just because his family is wealthy does not mean that his mother was financially supported for her healthcare. It's quite possible that the family patriarch held the purse strings and deemed that health insurance was the line for their financial support.

I'm in a similar situation with a family member and we are spending around 4-5k/month in a variety of non-allopathic strategies for this family member's health care. However, the family patriarch has drawn the line where his financial support is in providing housing, so the 4-5k is picked up by other family members.


You can be a literal millionaire and bled dry by mounting health insurance claim denials. There is little anyone can do to protect themselves from this outcome, save for not getting sick or becoming a billionaire. The health system in the US is insanely broken.

I thought that was a very strange thing to do from the patriarch, until I googled non-allopathic and found out you're setting fire to 4-5k a month.

Its homeopathy, NOT healthcare.


Non-Allopathic in my case means we’re not dealing with the traditional US medical system. We’re not engaged in homeopathy (microdosing random molecules) at all.

Perhaps what we are doing is still considered allopathic (most strategies are informed with research a la pubmed), with an osteopathic approach (whole body).

The difference here is that we’re able to eschew traditional means (dr appointment, lab test, drug rx feedback loop) of engaging with the medical system, while engaging with non-traditional health related businesses for our own care.

For example, we’re able to validate whether genetic disorders are at play by having sequenced full DNA and matching them against known genetic mutations.

We will order our own blood tests and pay out of pocket to quest, to drive decision making. Same thing a regular doctor would do, but in a far more expedited timeline. It’s a 1-2 day process test a vit D levels to determine and adjust dosing. An average doctor might be 3 weeks out for a 15 minute appointment to write that vit D lab script, then another week out from reviewing and writing the Rx for D.

4-5k a month is the cost of what someone with profound chronic illness ends up paying if they want to do their own R&D, deal with things on their own, in a manner that ensures timeliness and the best care possible. It’s a myth that access to the brightest minds (a la an institution like Mayo Clinic equals the best care, btw)

The money is merely the average in which to access the latest tests, as quickly as possible, medical equipment normally inaccessible to the general public and test and treatment options an engaged and highly trained MD that practices something such as precision medicine might suggest at the height of their careers’ charging power.

It also helps that the patriarch is a retired MD and can let us engage with the system out of band by writing scripts for medications that would be unavailable to the average public.

When lives and suffering are on the line, and we’re in these highly compensated roles, 4-5k/month is a privilege to spend for loved ones. Much of it may be lit on fire, so to speak, in personal r&d efforts, but each of them yields a win that gets us closer to a healthy baseline.


Maybe because he wanted to get caught? Or at least expected it and knew there was no way he'd get away with it.

[flagged]


"it's equally possible that he didn't have this stuff on him, but it was planted by the police themselves."

That would mean, there is a 50% chance that in general all the evidence has a 50% chance of being fake. And this is likely a bit of a exxageration.


> there is a 50% chance that in general all the evidence has a 50% chance of being fake

No, not all evidence - only the one needed for the Parallel Construction.


Imagine believing that cops don't plant evidence. LOL

You don't have to believe it never happens to believe the odds aren't 50%. It provably does happen, but 50% is a high probability.

Just because there are 2 possibilities doesn’t mean they’re both equally probable.

"it's equally possible"

The word equally possible implies equal chances for me. Otherwise it is equally possible, that the evidence was in fact planted by aliens.


I think in casual speech "equally possible" usually is taken to mean "also possible." I think most people would say "equally likely" to express what you're saying.

Thank you, I am not a native english speaker.

For what it’s worth, I am a native English speaker and I disagree with the other poster. I would interpret “equally possible” similarly to how you did.

Thank you, I suspected as much. That it is at least ambiguous.

Isn’t English fun?

I think “possible” has a less precise connotation than “probable” which suggests some statistics.


For what it's worth, to me, "it's equally possible" means "it's also possible, however remotely". I know it doesn't make sense, but, then again, neither does "I could care less".

There's already been a suggestion from Luigi that the money was planted.

Not it’s not. If they planted his back pack then surely his high profile pro bono lawyers are going to get him out of it.

How exactly do you propose to prove something (planting evidence) didn't happen?

Maybe I have too low expectation about USA interface between law enforcement and judiciary, but here in Poland there were many high-profile cases of misconduct of public prosecutors that colluded with the police. The only "proven" cases were about purposefuly destroying evidence: breaking CDs that held incriminating recordings, wiping weapons to remove fingerprints, agreeing to single version of testimony etc. They used procedural quirks to prevent defence from challenging those "mishaps" (like in one high-profile case with broken CD, they argued defence-held copy cannot be submitted, because of continuous custody requirements). Cases with planted evidence were always he-said-she-said, because when police writes a search report where they said you had something, then you have no way to challenge that.

May I add, fraud around those arrest/search reports (however they're called it English) is rampant. It starts with simple things, like notifying the subject about right to attorney. They just tick a box that you declined to summon attorney, and you have no way to challenge that, other than refusing to sign the paper, act of which carries no value.


He was arrested at a McDonalds. There will be footage of his presence and arrest from multiple angles.

We're deep, deep into speculation here. I'd wager that as the profile of the case goes up, so too does the dilligence and carefulness of the evidence chain of custody.

Not that I believe the evidence was planted, but we're also talking about small city police here. They're not generally used to high profile anything.

Why would they be pro bono? He comes from a very wealthy family.

There’s one lady who’s represented the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Boston bomber(s), and other less notable domestic terrorists.[1]

I’m sure there’s other like her who will work on high profile cases to gain recognition.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Clarke


They're often not technically pro-bono. Clarke, for example, gets paid by the government, because they have a vested interest in not having cases overturned on appeal due to insufficient counsel.

https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/judy_clarke_has_...

> Clarke would probably not want anyone to feel indebted to her. In fact, after the Smith case, she returned the $82,944 fee the state paid her, saying that other indigent defendants could use it more.


this will potentially be a self-defense case. since the shooter had chronic back pain, he could argue that shooting the ceo who denied his healthcare was his only means of protecting himself

That's not how criminal trials work. There are no free speech rights in court. Defendants can't just argue whatever they want. Judges have wide latitude to prohibit certain defenses and generally ban both the prosecution and defense from mentioning legally irrelevant points. Self defense is clearly codified under NY state law and this case doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.

There's zero chance of that.

he's looking for a spectacle. there's zero chance of it working, but 100% chance of garnering more media attention.

Lawyers tripping over each other to have their names associated with a potentially historic case. Remember how the Kardashian family originally became famous and some of them are billionaires now.

The Kardashians were already close to OJ pre-trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kardashian

> Simpson was the best man at Kardashian and Kris Houghton's wedding in 1978.

> Following the June 12, 1994, murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Simpson stayed in Kardashian's house to avoid the media. Kardashian was the man seen carrying Simpson's garment bag the day that Simpson flew back from Chicago. Prosecutors speculated that the bag may have contained Simpson's bloody clothes or the murder weapon.

> As one of Simpson's lawyers and a member of the defense "Dream Team", Kardashian could not be compelled or subpoenaed to testify against Simpson in the case, which included Simpson's past history and behavior with his ex-wife Nicole, and as to the contents of Simpson's garment bag.


> Remember how the Kardashian family originally became famous

Founding Movie Tunes?


That's a very fun fact. Thanks for sharing.

It seems far more likely to be a case of incompetence. Law enforcement actually has an extremely low rate of "solving" cases, especially if you exclude all the "solved" cases where the suspect is caught on scene or that end in a plea bargain (i.e. did not have to establish sufficient evidence in the first place).

Ever since he got "caught" (if you can call someone literally telling the police where he is "the police catching him"), all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" (i.e. attempting to demonstrate that a bullet was not only fired from a given type of gun but a specific singular gun of that type) and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him. They might actually be lucky and produce matches in this case as they have the actual suspect and murder weapon (assuming this wasn't an extremely unlikely 5D chess move of using a body double fall guy and/or different gun) but both of these types of evidence are extremely unreliable and rarely help actually finding the suspect even if they make for good television when they work. As I understand it the police even walked back on the mayor's initial claim about "having a name" to "having a list of names" - not to mention that you don't call in the FBI when you already have good leads yourself (if only for optics/political reasons).

He seems to have been mentally unstable for a while before engaging in this killing and the fact he wrote a manifesto strongly suggests he had an intention of being caught or at least considered it highly likely. The monopoly money bag wasn't necessarily a "red herring" as everyone I heard talk about it interpreted it as intending to send a message, which seems to agree with the apparent contents of his manifesto (based on what news reports have cited from it). The water bottle the police now wants to use for DNA evidence may have been deliberately left there for this purpose, too.

Based on what I've heard of his manifesto, he may have intended to kill other people too but have realized the difficulty involved given that his very public first killing likely spooked the other people on his list. I think it's more likely he didn't fully plan out an entire sequence of killings or didn't account for these complications and essentially gave up, settling on being caught sooner rather than later. People generally don't write manifestos when they don't also want to take credit for their actions.


People can have contradictory motives. People in real life aren't driven by carefully considered system of beliefs. Only in fiction are people required to make sense.

We just make enough sense to mostly get by in the world.


Sure but people rarely write manifestos.

That said, apparently his manifesto is fairly short and honestly sounds more like a confession than an actual political manifesto.

My point is more that usually when you hear about a killer having a manifesto you expect a lenghty diatribe about what they think is wrong with society and why they think what they did helps fix it - whether it's early 20th century "propaganda of the deed" anarchists, late 20th century "fall of the West" primitivists or early 21st century "race war" white supremacists and "new crusade" Christian nationalists. Of course for e.g. Islamist terrorists you don't even need a manifesto because everyone knows the cliff notes version already (Western imperialism, Islamic caliphate, blasphemy, etc). Instead this guy seems to have largely been upset with privatized healthcare, which is a common sentiment but rarely enough to motivate someone to pull off such an elaborate stunt.

That his manifesto is pretty rushed and incomplete does support the idea that he's more mentally unstable than genuinely "politically radicalized" though. The Christchurch shooter's manifesto for example was fairly incoherent and seemed more like an elaborate trolling attempt than a sophisticated political tract but clearly some effort went into it. Luigi's almost feels like a half-hearted homework assignment. I wouldn't be surprised if he quickly wrote it after the killing on a whim and didn't give it much thought before, which again would fit with my impression that he really focused on the first killing and didn't plan out much beyond that. As someone struggling with ADHD and autistic hyperfixation (not saying either of those apply to him), I can relate.


They don’t even need to actually tie him to the killing to put him in jail for a long time - possession of an illegal suppressor is a slam dunk here, and that’s major jail time.

Was there a picture of the suppressor?

Would this also apply if he were no longer in possession of the suppressor? Keep the gun, but ditch the suppressor?

It wouldn’t help him with any of the rest of this mess, but possessing the illegal suppressor is an easy ‘we can keep him in jail until we figure out the rest of this’ situation.

> all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" [...] and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him

I don't know about your country, but in my country if you look like the person shown on CCTV committing a crime, you're wearing the same jacket, you're carrying the same illegal gun, and you're carrying a handwritten manifesto justifying the crime?

That's enough evidence for a normal jury of normal people to convict. The cops don't really need to add any DNA or CSI woo, juries are capable of exercising common sense.

Only way there's reasonable doubt here is if the guy's carrying the first place trophy for the CEO shooter lookalike contest.


Yeah, that's why I'm pointing it out. It's like the police is trying to oversell their investigative work in the public image, which strongly suggests that they had very little hand in actually catching him and now try to compensate - whether it's because they really were tipped off by a McDonald's employee or because the FBI found him doing something fishier. But the fact he had everything on him strongly suggests that the McDonald's story is at least credible.

It's pretty humiliating if you have a big militarized police force and can't catch a guy who killed a big important CEO in public and then went on wearing the murder suit in public until a random McDonald's guy calls you up and literally tells you where to find him, in public.


Remember all those movies that show the government tracking people on satellites and using phone echolocation, etc?

Where is that shit now for a guy they have VIDEOS of?

Remember when osama bin Laden was staying a relatives house and not in a secret underground cave network?

This CSI/Navy seal messaging is compliance propaganda.


Remember when hundreds of militants crossed the most secure border wall in any "Western" country ever both on foot, in vehicles and on paragliders and went on to massacre literally over a thousand people including hundreds of reservists before the second most overfunded military in the world was able to put a stop to them and stupidly ended up killing civvies and friendlies in the crossfire because it has a doctrine of preventing hostage taking at any cost?

Remember when the US spy agencies prevented a credible terrorist plot by accidentally catching a guy in the Middle East carrying a thumb drive with terrorist plans on it?

Surveillance exists to maintain control, it can't help establish it. Dragnet surveillance exists to reconstruct events, not to prevent them. And most importantly, it all exists to suppress, not to protect. It's about dominance, not security.


Neither of your theories answer the question -- how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton (conference venue) and would arrive by foot 1 hour and 15 minutes before conference opens at 8am (CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance). The shooter was caught on camera talking on a burner phone 15 minutes before shooting. Who did he talk to? Was he acting alone or received some help? The shooter only had to wait for 15 minutes or so before his target arrives. Pure "luck" or help from inside?

Find when CEO is going to speak at conference, work backward from there.

Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.

Not rocket science at all, just basic OSint

Waiting 15min instead of 1hr 15min was probably luck though.


> Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.

In this case it was Hilton. And if the CEO stayed at Hilton he had no reason to be on the street outside the hotel where the killer was waiting for him. Somehow the shooter knew that the target is not staying at the Hilton and will be walking to the front entrance. BTW, the normal practice for high profile individuals to arrive in a car to a service entrance hidden from the public.


This is my sticking point as well. The bullet messages only made sense for this specific guy and that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets, take a multi-state bus ride, camp out in a hostel, etc if you’re not 100% sure the guy is going to be there.

I’d feel more confident if he’d staked the route out for multiple days or if there was a plausible backup plan like breaking in to the CEO’s hotel or the conference.


Isn’t this just selection bias? If he had been wrong and not seen the CEO, we would never have heard about him.

For all we know he made 15 attempts before this.


Yep. Also, if you're trying to surprise someone at their arrival to an event, you absolutely do arrive super early to wait for them rather than try to guess their exact arrival time. If the target had arrived in mid morning after missing the opening speech instead, his killer would have waited. If the target had made a late decision not to attend, we'd have probably found out about the killer via the next event or next target

> that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets

They weren't engraved. It was just Sharpie. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-tho... "A source briefed on the investigation said each word was meticulously written, not etched, onto the casings in Sharpie."

> 100% sure the guy is going to be there.

One can be 100% sure the guy is gonna at least be at the conference, and humans tend to be predictable. He was also fairly likely to be at the venue the day before getting prepared.


This is exactly what us hunters do year after year, time and time again. Drive for hours, hike for miles. Gathering what information we can. Then at some point we have to make assumptions and commit to some scenario in hopes it pans out the way you assume.

A tremendous amount of time and effort is spent with it all riding on a few, hopefully, well placed assumptions. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Usually your acquaintances only hear about the times the hunt works out. Same with this. We only hear about it, because it worked out for the hunter


There are plenty of plausible explanations, but it probably wouldn't have been a huge lift to get Thompson's itinerary from his secretary by spearfishing or some other form of social engineering.

> how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton

Because someone paid that much money stays at a fancier place, like one of the Conrads or Waldorf Astorias. Hilton's a mid-level brand.

Or, you follow him from the conference center the day before.


> CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance

But they may well have arranged other, small meetings with people also attending the same annual meeting. It's then convenient to have them all in the same hotel.


Also I read it was a 3D printed gun and silencer which is hard to believe just printed it and never practiced or is he trained at shooting?

It does explain the malfunction though.

Yeah if a 3d printed silencer works at all it will only work once. It will be deformed by the heat and obstruct the bullet on the next shot.

No, it won't. It's possible to 3d print suppressors that withstand multiple shots, even mag dumps if they're made robustly enough.

He needed a Neilsen device or piston in the suppressor to assist with cycling on the action, which he didn't have.

He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.

edit: i'll speculate and say the suppressor still worked after the shooting because he still had it on him. if it was melted or broken, he may have been more apt to toss it.


Do you think he practiced before this or took a leap of faith with a possibly defective printed silencer? It’s bonkers to me that he would just hope for the best and possibly have it fail during the encounter and also it’s curious that he knew about the racking thing with every shot.

I mean he’s clearly a bright individual, Ivy League and comp sci major and all so did he study YouTube videos or something?


Was this the first time he tried it? Probably not.

>media really over-estimated this persons competence

It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.


We came within a literal inch of witnessing the assassination of a presidential candidate earlier this year, by a kid with no particular skills and an easily obtained rifle. We are lucky that people are mostly nonviolent.

Twice, even!

There's very little in America to stop a person who is willing to die (or spend life in prison) from killing others.

Most normal people just have a healthy self preservation instinct, so aren't willing to accept those consequences.


It's not just America. Shinzo Abe was assassinated, with security and at a public event, by somebody using a homemade gun with homemade ammo.

As tech advances over time, this will all only become even more true.


Mass shootings in the US don’t even make the news any more. I don’t think that’s true in most countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...

547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.


>547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.

Don't lie at us with statistics like that. The bulk of those so called "mass shootings", normal crimes gone off the rails and other things that are nowhere near what people think when you use the words "mass shooting", which is almost certainly the slight of hand you're going for.

2+ victims is a mass shooting per the FBI definition. While what you say and like you reference is technically true it's also a particularly evil way to mislead the reader to portray it as you did. The typical mass shooting on that list consists of 2-4 people shot over the course of an otherwise normal crime (usually a crime for profit gone off the rails or the drug industry DIYing dispute resolution) wheres the colloquial definition of "mass shooting" is more along the lines of a crazy suicidal person killing as many others as they can.

Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.


> Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.

Now that sounds like obvious selection bias. Also, the Wikipedia article says "specifically for the purposes of this article, a total of four or more victims". But the point about the categorization is well taken. As the article says: "Many incidents involving organized crime and gang violence are included."


And this ‘mass shooting’ list also includes injuries NOT caused by shooting. What’s the point of that?

“ A man was killed and three women were injured when they fired upon in a vehicle on eastbound Roosevelt Road near Cicero Avenue in Cicero. The victims fled north onto Cicero Avenue into Chicago where they crashed, leading to three others being injured in the crash.[16]”

^ Who would call this a mass shooting?


The disparity is laid bare by the fact that this wasn’t even the only murder in lower Manhattan on that day. One gets a multi-state manhunt and the top spot on national news for days. The other got a shrug.

Doesn't it make sense for police to go after high profile killings? If they catch the CEO killer that's more good press for them, and if they were slacking there's more chance that they'll get hounded for it.

Sure. NYPD is doing the rational thing in a society that treats the murder of a wealthy CEO as a much worse crime than the murder of a semi-homeless maybe-illegal immigrant.

And in a society that strongly valued equality before the law, they wouldn’t dare treat the two cases so differently. Thus we can see that we don’t live in such a society.


>And in a society that strongly valued equality before the law, they wouldn’t dare treat the two cases so differently. Thus we can see that we don’t live in such a society.

How would "equality before the law" as you described even work? If some celebrity got killed and people wanted to contribute their resources into finding their killer, is that suddenly bad now? If my son got killed and I'm trying to find his killer rather than doing the Right Thing™ by devoting my time equally among all unsolved murder cases, am I a bad person?


You wouldn’t be, but the police doing so would be in such a situation, if there was equality.

Is a police department that shrugs and says "we'd want to solve this high profile murder that everyone wants solved, but because of 'equality' we have to solve this gangbanger murder that nobody cares about" really what we want? Isn't a government that's responsive to citizen demands also an ideal? What happens if they conflict?

Your concerns about some people being more deserving of a good investigation reminds me why it's great that hospitals will serve everyone, even if they are a gangbanger.

Where do hospitals provide literally equivalent good service to everyone, without any preference whatsoever?

Keep in mind, for this case in specific, a huge number of people did not want it solved

>Keep in mind, for this case in specific, a huge number of people did not want it solved

Where? If you go by reddit, there's a "huge number of people" who want to see society collapse in a socialist revolution, but that's clearly not representative of the overall population. Even the disparity between the support for kamala vs at the polls was stark.


If you go by literally any venue where people talk. There is, at the minimum, widespread 'darn - a completely awful human was killed - what a shame' mentality everywhere, and across the political spectrum.

Justice is not defined by the law, but by personal values. The prosecutor in this case is going to be obsessive in ensuring that none of the jurors understand their legal right to jury nullification, because if they do - this guy stands a very high chance of a mistrial - if not outright acquittal.


>If you go by literally any venue where people talk. There is, at the minimum, widespread 'darn - a completely awful human was killed - what a shame' mentality everywhere, and across the political spectrum.

that's... not the same thing being argued a few comments up? ie.

"Keep in mind, for this case in specific, a huge number of people did not want it solved"

I don't think it's controversial that the CEO isn't well liked, or that some (most?) people thought his death was a net good, but that's not the same as actively wanting the murder to not be solved.


I mean, yes, I do want a world where the police feel like they need to solve murders even when the victims are considered distasteful.

Only two of those sources exclude gang and organized crime-related shootings, which have made up a large portion of the statistic in the past.

Gang and organized crime-related shootings are very bad to have, most developed countries don't have them either.


It's always weird to me when people want to exclude them from stats.

Because it paints the image that normal innocent people are getting shot up in schools and markets more often than they really are, primarily to push the narrative that guns need to be taken from people who have committed no crimes, to stop crime.

In reality, the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other. Whether it be with a legally-purchased gun, an illegally-purchased gun, a homemade gun, a knife, a homemade shank, a baseball bat, a vehicle.


>normal innocent people are getting shot up in schools and markets [often]

>the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other

Both of these things can be true. You can have a rampant gang violence problem, and also a rampant school shooting problem. The fact that the gang problem is worse doesn't make the school shooting problem okay, and to use this to argue against gun control is... odd.


The point is that gun control isn't solving anything but eliminating what many Americans perceive as a fundamental right, because bad people do bad things with neutral items. You can stab dozens of people mortally before you're put down. You can mow a crowd of people down with your vehicle. But I carry a gun every day out of the possibility that someone might do one of those things to me, or my loved ones.

Banning a right is the worst bandaid "fix" possible, on top of what is a much more fundamental problem that can't be solved by merely stopping one of its symptoms. Our people are sick in multiple ways. Let's fix that.


They're authoritarians, they don't want to take away guns from the government, only the citizens.

The majority of shootings are actually gun owners or their family members killing themselves. 60% or so.

Suicide makes up 55% of gun deaths, and the US is literally the only country in the world that counts these as gun violence. The remainder is primarily gang violence. Shooting of non-gang affiliated people is extremely rare, and noteworthy because of this rarity. Murder-suicides are also rare, about 1% of suicides.

Most discussion and statistics about gun violence intentionally obfuscates these facts. We could speculate about the motivations why, but it is largely irrelevant.


You seem to be hinting, by your choice of statistics, that gun violence in the USA is not the pressing social issue it is commonly made out to be. (We could speculate about the motivations why, but it is largely irrelevant.)

Since I disagree, I will offer my own statistic: the leading cause of death in the United States among children and adolescents is gunshot wound.


I would agree that gun violence is a serious issue. However, I think most people are misled/misinformed about nature of the problem, who is at risk, and their personal risk.

I think that the risk is highly concentrated on a subset of people, an individuals can take simple actions to remove themselves from that subset.

Examples would be if you steer clear of gangs, drugs, and abusive partners, your risk is drastically lower than the national average. The same is true for your kids, especially if you don't keep guns in your house.

Now, I still think it's a problem that other Americans are dying from gun violence, even if I don't think I am personally at much risk. I will admit that this does reduce the sense of urgency I feel, and I suspect that this is why the numbers are obfuscated.

The groups that want to reduce gun violence rightly understand that personal fear is a greater motivator then general concern for the well-being of others, so the narrative exaggerates the former and not the letter. This is why you get lone suicide grouped with home invasion for gun violence statistics. It is why you get 2 gang members shot in a drug deal gone bad classified with school massacres as mass shootings.


Do you have a source on gang violence?

Of the numbers I've seen, in total gun related dealths are evenly split between suicide and homicide.

Of the homicides, ~10-50% are gang related (depending on source) and ~50% are drug-related (including overlap with gang).

F.ex. intimate partner violence being another major homicide category.


Not off-hand. Last time I looked into it, tagging homicide associations was a pretty messy business. I think drug related gun homicides and gang homicides two side to the same coin.

I've seen numbers on the order of 10% for intimate gun partner homicide. The percent is much higher for women, but women are a minority of gun homicide victims overall.


I looked at a variety of sources for the above numbers, but it certainly didn't seem like gang- or drug-specific associations drove the majority of non-suicide gun deaths. A decent chunk, but there are other reasons.

One surprising / not surprising other fact: ~50-75% of gun deaths involve alcohol and ~25% meth.


Would be curious to see what you are looking at too. Many deaths have no attribution as well, which could well fall into drug or gang.

Parent specifically said “shooting deaths”, which technically includes guns shooting the person holding them in any country.

Gun suicide specifically affects white conservatives males and their kids more than any demographic. Either it’s access to guns, or conservatives are particularly more depressed (or maybe they lack access mental health services?). Having a friend die this way when I was in high school (and knowing no one who was shot and killed by someone else), it’s particularly real to me.


True, let me revise. The majority of "shootings" are suicides, which can be carried out in all manner of ways. The second largest contributors are gangs and organized crime. The smallest, by far, is what people actually picture in their mind when they hear "mass shooting".

Guns are an easy way to do it with a higher success rate. It is really hard to stab yourself to death even though it’s possible, for example. Who knows what would happen in Korea if guns were legal.

Because it's mostly business dispute resolution and it dominates the stats if you include it.

It's not like you can ask the courts to use state violence on the guy that shorted you come coke or to kick that other gang's dealer off your turf because he's already been warned once. Illegal industry has to DIY it.

To include it would be like compiling a list of extortion and including government fines and civil judgements. It dominates the stats so much that if you include it and evaluate it you're not actually looking at the thing you want to be looking at, you're measuring by proxy the size of something else. You'll wind up deriving conclusions like "most mass shooters are low level gang members" or "the threatening party in most extortion is the state" that is nominally true but also absurd doublespeak not actually congruent with the meaning of those words.


Why? I'm not in a gang or a mob, so i am safe from their silly little squabbles. I don't care how many gang members kill each other. I also don't care how many people die in DRC civil wars, because I am not in the DRC. I don't care about people dying on other planets and in different galaxies.

Most normal people have a healthy aversion to killing. That’s what stops it, not fear of consequences.

We all agree most normal people have an aversion to killing. You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?

It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence, every day, everywhere. Have you never seen a fight/argument on the street suddenly diffuse when a cop appears? Or eg, a guy drunk at a bar, starting to raise his voice in anger at someone, only to simmer down when he sees the bartender walking over because he doesn't want to be kicked out?

Awareness of consequences is a necessary precondition for people to course-correct. That's an essential feature of people: we are able to notice when we're on course toward a bad outcome (whether that's harm to oneself, or harm to someone/something we care about, or any undesirable situation), and so take responsibility for our actions in advance so we can change course. Without that we'd be amoral creatures. This is what makes us moral beings – that we can take responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. This is a good thing. It's what makes us people, and it's the basis of having a civilisation that is mostly peaceful.


It’s not a tautology. The aversion to killing is an inherent psychological thing. Some things are just fundamental to a person’s psychology. Some people have such a strong aversion to spiders that they can’t go near one, even when they know for certain that it’s harmless and there would be no consequences. And psychologically healthy people have that sort of aversion to killing another person. It’s inherent programming.

How often do fights end without police intervention? How many times do people get angry and decide not to escalate it to the point of murder even when they could get away with it? People do sometimes end up in situations where they could get away with killing. They rarely take advantage.

You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.

When you mention “a bad outcome” you include harm to someone we care about. The vast majority of people consider a person’s death to be a bad outcome even if they don’t care about that person in particular.

I think you’re conflating two very separate ideas here. There’s the idea of the natural consequences of an action, and then there’s the idea of consequences imposed by some authority. The original comment I replied to was talking entirely about the latter. Here you discuss both but you treat them the same. But someone who refrains from killing because they don’t like the consequence of someone being dead is very different from someone who refrains from killing because they don’t want to go to prison.

There are really three different things here: 1) people don’t kill because of the legal or physical consequences to themselves 2) people don’t kill because they don’t like the outcome of a dead person 3) people don’t kill because they fundamentally don’t want to. There are examples of all 3. The vast majority of people aren’t in category 1. I think they’re almost all in 3, but there’s no practical difference between 2 and 3.


> You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.

Just figured I'd throw a cite in on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways

William Golding had no special anthroplogical knowledge/training, he was just writing fiction.


There is a difference between a bar fight and killing someone with intent. A bar fight is a fight for dominance, like you see in animals, the outcome is rarely fatal as the point is just to establish who is stronger and who should submit.

We have an aversion to killing that goes further than the fear of consequences. It can be seen in the military, where soldiers naturally don't want to kill their enemies, even when they have incentives to do so. To be effective, soldiers have to be desensitized to killing through their training. Enemies are dehumanized, they train on human shaped targets, etc... And even with all that training, after a few years of active service, many start questioning their life choices. It is common for military pilots, who enlist for the love of flying, until they realize what they are really doing, i.e. killing people. When that happens, it is time to retire to a noncombatant job.

Punishing crime is not useless, but I think saying that consequences are the cause of aversion for killing is backwards. We have a natural aversion for killing, especially when we are in a prosperous situation like we (the first world) are now in. And that's why we take murder so seriously.

And speaking of murder, our natural aversion for killing shows when we see how we treat the death penalty nowadays. The death penalty is (generally) for the worst people humanity has to offer, their killing have been approved by the highest authority, and there is still opposition. We even have rituals to offload the responsibility of killing from the executioners. For example by having a random person in a firing squad fire a blank round.


>You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?

It's a fairly straightforward understanding. If I said I have an aversion to the taste of steak, would you require additional information to why I don't eat steak? Or, to put it in your terms, eating steak causes a negative internal state for me and doesn't require any external consequence to make me avoid it.

>It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence

There's a problem with relying on "intuitive" understandings in some cases, especially when there is contradictory evidence. I think the term for your stance is "deterrence theory/effect." In this case, I believe there are plenty of studies that show harsher consequences do not reduce crimes rates (or at least have marginal effects). People are not rational actors, especially in highly agitated emotional states.


One can have an aversion to the act itself without considering the consequences. People who have never gotten in a real fight before don't understand that its actually quite difficult to throw a full-strength punch at someone if you've never done so before. It's not the consequences that you're considering in that moment, but an aversion to the violence itself.

Eh honestly I think its both but probably suprising amounts of the latter

People sometimes end up in situations where there would be no consequences, and killing rarely ensues.

How rulers like Putin survive so long though?

By making it appear, and actually, much harder. More surveillance, more body guards, stronger loyalty checks can get you a lot of security.

And let's be honest. Who would take a bullet for this CEO of one of the most despised corporations in USA (that's saying something).

I honestly think, that the general distaste for this particular industry, is why the law enforcement had such a hard time catching him.


I did say almost. Putin is kind of the extreme example.

If someone is willing to live like an absolute hermit in basically a police state, hiding behind layers and layers of security apparatus, engaging lookalikes and only allowing the loyalty-tested anywhere near him, survival odds improve quite a bit.

But for anyone trying to live anything remotely approaching a normal life, or with any real freedom, your continued survival is completely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in your world have a personal breaker against murder.


> Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence.

definitely this one. there was a lot of projection of competency onto him, wanting him to be some kind of superhero assassin that would disappear. when in reality, he wasn't using that welrod pistol clone, and his gun was jamming with every shot.

but also he was self-destructive and definitely wasn't trying hard enough to not get caught. and that comes with the territory because you're not going to be well-adjusted and decide to assassinate someone in broad daylight. and i would pick self-destructive over arrogant. and he may just have not realized how distinct his facial features were.


He knew it was going to jam because he didn't have a proper device on his suppressor. He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.

It never made sense to me why he was wandering around the city in the same exact clothes he used during the murder. If he had simply worn another jacket, he may never have been identified. How could he not have realized he'd be on camera or described by witnesses?

Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of 4D chess. He just decided to go kill this guy for some reason and went and did it. Dumb luck and a dense population easily explains how he was able to escape the city.


That's the part that baffles me. Whenever something like this happens I re-engineer the planning as a mental exercise. I have never had any interest in offing anybody, but I never understand not having a plan and a basic disguise. The guy had IDs, but he also did nothing to hide his p[articular characteristics. If he had thinned his eyebrows and worn fake glasses and kept his mask on he'd likely still be at large. I would have ditched or reversed the jacket right away and thrown on a hat at the very least.

I think it is more informative to think of a time you planned a big trip, especially if things went really wrong on the trip or there was a significant problem. Looking back with hindsight, I can see how I may have failed to see and adapt to an issue before it got bigger or that I act irrationally because I’m stressed and I haven’t let go of a preconceived notion and accepted the new situation. I have wondered why I didn’t investigate something beforehand that now seems obvious and important. There have been cases where sheer dumb luck saved me or screwed me. Afterwards I could say I should have had a backup X or should have planned Y ahead of time, but I didn’t see or do those things.

There are so many moving parts in a situation like this that it is impossible to think of everything, and the things you don’t think of will look obvious to people after the fact. The dumb luck situations that save you or screw you can be interpreted as inside knowledge. His bumbling actions afterward from the outside might seem like a “why wouldn’t he just do this instead” without thinking about how the mental toll, stress, and panic of being hunted by the whole country could degrade your judgement.


I think he might have expected private security guards to tackle him as soon as he did it.

My guess is he didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about his emotional state after pulling the trigger. He probably immediately regretted the decision and half heartedly followed some sort of escape plan.

Or he realized that he'd become a folk hero and wanted to try his chances in the court of public opinion, try to inspire others, etc.

If he wanted to get caught, he didn't need to wear a disguise all the way from Georgia or wherever he came from. He didn't need to use a fake ID. He didn't need to flee the scene - at least, flee outside the city.

Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?


If you wanted to get caught then why not just stay at the crime scene or surrender a few days later?

But maybe he knew it was inevitable so he spent his last few days living life normally.


I imagine a person who stays at the crime scene after shooting someone several times is in much higher danger of being shot himself than if he flees and is captured later.

Another option is to flee and shortly after turn yourself in into a police station unarmed

I don't know if it was intentional but he certainly drummed up the hype over the murder by staying free as long as he did.

He probably didn’t want to get caught until he saw millions of people were on his side, then he changed his mind. Smart move imho. He started a movement he probably didn’t anticipate.

Maybe to create clout ? (assuming he really intended to get caught eventually)

Reportedly he is smart, so he probably knows the value of a good mystery.


We amateur criminologist assume intent in every clue. But Luigi, just like Roskalnikov, probably was a mixture of guilt, incompetence, and mental breakdown, as the reality of his situation and its hopelessness took over his thoughts.

Anyone speculating too far should think how well they would sleep after shooting someone on the street and fleeing the biggest manhunt in recent history. Then ask themselves what kind of decisions they could make after 2 days of no sleep and immense stress.

People watch too many movies.


Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain. We've all known someone with an "I can do anything" complex. Anyone can do anything... poorly. He likely deluded himself into believing he already outsmarted the cops so why even bother. Having two degrees doesn't make one a competent plumber, electrician, or in this case, criminal.

>Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain.

This. And HN is the perfect example to observe this phenomenon.

I lost track how many highly confident but incorrect takes I read here on semiconductor topics from people who assumed they know everything about any tech topic because they earn sich figures from writing crud web software.


Go one step further. Why does that happen?

People on HN skew young, smart (in one domain), and tend to live in a bubble of similar people. If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.

It needn't be most, or even many on HN, and people of all kinds vastly overestimate their abilities. It's just that on HN it's overestimating with great ambition.

(I say this very confidently, don't I?)


So funny to jump to the "they're just kids" explanation for this when we are literally talking on a forum hosted by a VC incubator.

Is it not Occam's razor that people are like this because this world of startups, "cutting edge tech", "move fast and break things", etc. gives quite clear incentives to be like this? The entire of financial world of tech is quite significantly propped up by the inertia of unearned confidence!


> If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.

And then you become the richest man in the world and buy Twitter and show everyone that you're kind of just clueless outside of your area of expertise, but putting up with you is profitable enough that people just go with it.


Also, lets not discount the fact that people can have a lot of success stepping out of their core domain.

People can do this repeatedly with positive feedback and increasing scope until eventually it doesn't work.


You sound like an expert in psychology.

Eh, I'm nothing of the sort, I'm only advancing in years and have made it a point to exist in as many segments of society as I could. I was that cocky engineer once, my words are only anecdote from first-hand experience and observation. I never expect to be right, only hopefully more right than wrong.

How would discourse change to eliminate this problem? Should we only speak about topics we are employed in? Lead each comment with a summary of our qualifications, or a proclamation of humility where we signal how little we know?

I know you jest, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all. There are languages whose grammar forces the speaker to explicitly clarify the source of information; Eastern Pomo, for example, has different verb forms for whether it's something you know first hand, saw, are repeating, or deducing. I imagine it's not only useful for the listener, it also helps the speaker realise if maybe they are building a shaky argument to make a point. I, for one, would be interested to see that system in English, it could lead to interesting developments.

I mean, hypothetically MS or Meta could already automatically do this...

See, you put the caveat at the bottom, but I think you are just having a normal discussion. You aren't speaking "very confidently," you are just making an argument.

What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.

See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.


It was a little meta-joke, but I think the world could use a lot more expressions of doubt. Very few things are certain or universally true, and those that do tend to have Greek letters in them. I find highly confident people highly suspicious, and a culture that rewards overconfidence and punishes doubt both exhausting and dangerous.

Probably because people on the internet like to hear opinions on things like psychological and sociological factors from people who have simply stated an expertise in semiconductors...

Institutionalization of engineers and physicists thinking they are smarter than others.

overconfidence leads to participation which results in measurable statements and artefacts, under confidence does not. people are loud and (mostly) incorrect or silent.

But why would those "measurable statements and artefacts" lead one to believe they are competent? Presumably, wouldn't they also provide evidence of one's ignorance if they were evaluated objectively?

(If it wasn't clear, I'm poking at the idea that we have numerous biases that prevent objective evaluation)


My (unpopular) take--programmers have been 'gassed up' by a decade of overcompensation + title inflation.

People think the high pay and the fancy titles* they're (often) given reflects their value or intellect*, even subconsciously, and they behave in such a manner.

*Sorry, I don't consider web programming (which comprises a majority of modern software development) "engineering"

*Many are some of the most intelligent people quite literally on Earth, or are otherwise exceptional.


heh yeah i think we're coming up now on two generations of our brightest minds being spent on making us more isolated from each other and clicking on ads.

Ivy Leaguers are trained, often from birth, that they are better than the rest of us plebs because of their “merit” and represent a superhuman caste. This guy was most likely the same way.

If you’re told that you’re a superhuman, then why not think you can get away with it?


Oh, it's not just Ivy League although of course that usually comes with a background of privilege and prestige that further compounds on this tendency. STEM people in general heavily demonstrate this tendency. MBA types too, although they tend to think the solution always comes down to treating everything as a business or privatization.

This is a good overview of some of your biases, but I don't think it generalises to reality.

You're aware that zingy one-liners only make for good conversation on the screen, not real life, right?

> MBA types too, although they tend to think the solution always comes down to

treating everything as a market or something to be solved with a market mechanism


Intelligent people are not any less likely to be delusional than anyone. They are however, much better at convincing themselves and others of their delusions.

People that have logic training such as lawyers and engineers even more so.


Michael Shermer's book Why Smart People Believe Weird Things.

I like coming here to remind myself how many things I know almost nothing about.

Or just take this story, where people who haven't even punched a CEO are making up detailed "theories" about the actions and motivations of someone who shot one dead.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto

Read his manifesto, then read this whole thread again. It's hilarious.


Being educated isn't really representative of Hacker News. There are very clear dynamics here where being more knowledgeable makes the discussions irrelevant.

There are generally two ways of doing hard things. Either you are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the challenges and work around, or overcome, them. Or you are unaware, or shameless, enough to do it anyway. The later is much easier than the former. (Then you also have those who believe they could do something but never does because they can't). (Also not entirely mutually exclusive).

Sometimes this is a feature of education, but most of the time it is just a feature of ignorance. Being educated doesn't also prevent you from being ignorant. It is very much expected that most willing to do something hard are smart enough to do it, but not smart enough to do it well. Unless it's been made easier, but then it is no longer as hard.

It is also perception. Knowing both software and hardware would make you a technologist, or when talking about hardware someone who knows hardware but also knows software. Not knowing hardware but talking about it would more likely make you perceived as someone who knows software. And going back to the beginning, it is easier to think you know software than to actually know it.


Looking at his tweets he looks like a perfect example of a smug “TPOT” postrationalist that identifies themselves as “gray tribe” and then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein and has retrograde views.

Thinking he’s smarter than the rest of us is most likely a big part of his identity.


I don't understand most of these terms, and I'm curious how much of that is me being a dummy, or just not consuming a generous amount of some very specific bubble's jargon.

Edit: to clarify, when you go down the rabbit hole of certain bubbles, you come across terms that nobody will know unless they've gone down those same rabbit holes. Occasionally when you come up for air, you might find yourself using those terms as if they're broadly known.


They seem to be rather recent terms, say the last year or so. I found this just posted article helpful: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-tpot-twit...

yeah this is person is talking about a very particular Twitter "for you" social algorithmic tarpit

He's definitely fitting the cliché of "STEM graduate who thinks they have all the answers to social problems without reading any previous works on the subject". E.g. he thinks Japan's cultural problems are a bigger issue than its birth rate itself (correct) but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect). He clearly takes inspiration from the Unabomber Manifesto but seems to focus on the primitivism instead of trying to understand the underlying social dynamics and power structures (which you might expect if he were a "leftist" as many initially assumed).

You can take a person out of his ivy league STEM background but you can't take the ivy league STEM background out of a person, or something.


> but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect)

Why are you thinking he's incorrect? I mean, a debate can be had if bans are the correct tool, but there is a massive trend in hospitality in general (both restaurants and lodging) to de-personalize the entire experience, to take the human service out of the loop and make it invisible where it still needs to take place:

- hotel booking? no travel agents, no phone calls, anyone can just do that themselves with bookingdotcom and other aggregator service.

- hotel on-site service? no check-in at the reception, you go to a terminal, enter your booking id, get a keycard and that's it. when you check out, you close the door, dispose of the key card, and you haven't seen or interacted with any human during the entirety of your stay.

- food ordering? you sit alone at home, scroll through a list of restaurants that might not even exist ("ghost kitchens"), a computer orders a human to make the food, said anonymous person (and maybe some colleagues) makes your food, another anonymous person gets ordered by a computer to deliver it to your doorstep, and if you specify a non-contact delivery you didn't have to interact with a single human for anything. And I think it won't take long for the cooks to be replaced by machines as well, delivery robots are already a thing.

- on site food eating: you don't order at a server any more, you order at a terminal, a tablet or even your own phone, the computer dispatches cooks and servers, some even don't have human servers any more but only robots or running-sushi-style conveyor belts, and in the end you pay at a machine.

So yes, "running sushi" is definitely a good example how human to human interactions are outright eliminated from our lives.


Fwiw, the conveyor belt sushi place I last went to did not feel any less personal than a typical restaurant, and did not seem to have fewer interactions with people than any place below a relatively fancy date spot

That was my point. It's an evocative image if you don't think about it too long but if you've ever seen one it's no different from any other fast food place. Unless you're a frequent customer, you're probably not going to develop any meaningful relationships with service workers - this is especially true for chain/franchise establishments and the rare exceptions I can think of are "mom and pop" style places which have all but vanished. You go to a places operated by service workers to socialize with other patrons (especially if they accompany you there, like on a date or group event), not the staff. In many cases the staff are literally required not to have genuine human interactions with you because they're being paid to be nice to you.

An Ivy League STEM background is not capable of educating him on the issues he's grappling with. Now an Ivy League Arts background might.

Unfortunately there's just not enough time in the day to really dig into the issues he's grappling with when there's an overwelming course load of databases and physics etc.


I hope he's not right about Japan because since covid I talk to even less people. Restaurants have automated not just ordering, but reservations and payment too now.

Of course he's right. The influence of conveyor belt sushi specifically seems very dubious (isn't it just an unusual novelty?) but any social trend that has people meeting and talking to others less frequently will have people meeting potential partners less frequently. What is the advice always given to people looking for a partner? Go out and meet people. Meet as many people as you can to increase your odds. Any aspect of Japanese society that reinforces or facilitates social isolation has a share of the blame for their demographic problem.

Surely the issue in Japan (and the West, tbh) is that people don't actually WANT to meet each other.

Well, this is the defining trend of our technological progress. People getting what they want makes them unhappy in the long, multigenerational term.

We innovate because we like being comfortable. We don’t want to tend to a fire constantly to be warm. We don’t want to depend on the randomness of hunting/foraging to have a full belly. We don’t want to take days and days of travel to go a few towns over. We don’t want to have to deal with people we don’t know because that’s anxiety inducing.

So we invent all those things that means many modern humans can just stay comfy, warm and fed at home with all their basic needs met without having to go through all this discomfort.

The problem now is that we’re all unhealthy, lonely, feel purposeless (and to top it all the planet is on fire).


> The problem now is that we’re all unhealthy, lonely, feel purposeless (and to top it all the planet is on fire).

None of that is true. You're projecting what some people struggle with onto everyone, when the data indicates people are better off today. And mental health issues aren't unique to the industrialized world. Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.


> when the data indicates people are better off today

And what "data" would that be?

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/03/new-surgeon-genera...

https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/24/10/wha...

https://www.bib.bund.de/EN/News/2024/2024-05-29-FReDA-Policy...

And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?

> Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.

What does that even mean? It's not literally burning, so it's fine? Because you say so?


But some billionaire did a TED talk where he said that the global poverty rate has been constantly declining, which is true, even if it is not meaningful if you remove it from the real-world context of purchasing power, social safety nets, support networks and shared commons, and only a positive if you think sweatshops are good because they create job opportunities.

> And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?

What, you don't find increasing shareholder value compelling?

> It's not literally burning, so it's fine?

Presumably they think the climage catastrophe is not a big deal. "On fire" is clearly hyperbole but the point is that we're on a fast track to total global economic collapse (to say nothing about the death and destruction itself) as long as the answer is to carefully do some ineffective reductions and give more money to the industry to spend on "carbon capture" technology that creates more emissions in the process of being built, maintained and operated than it could ever hope to capture, but I digress.


There is plenty of data saying the average person is more unhealthy, lonely and unhappy than 50 years ago, at least in the developed world.

The less you meet people, the less comfortable you are with meeting people, the less you want to meet people. It's a death spiral.

It's not just about exposure to other people. It's also about facilitating genuine human connections. Japan's work culture is detrimental to life outside the workplace but the cultural problems extend far beyond that. It shouldn't need saying but Japanese culture is also extremely sexist and literally patriarchic in ways that should be obvious even to those claiming "Western culture" (which as a European is a ridiculous notion given the vast differences in attitude across the continent - or even within individual countries - alone) isn't at all.

On the one hand you have overblown expectations of success and commitment to work for men, on the other you have an expectation of submissiveness, docility and youthful purity for women, but in reality most men can't be high earners, most women need to work the same grueling hours to make a living and it all just ends up making everyone unhappy and lonely because nobody can live up to the expectations both instilled in them from a young age and placed on them by their peers and failure is not an option. Not to mention that the concept of dedication to your employer has become completely detached from the previously implied reward of the company's loyalty to their lifelong committed workers, too.

The situation in "the West" (let's say the US) is comparable in some ways, certainly, but the gendered expectations are much less intense and there are at least some options to socialize outside the work environment and as bad as labor protections are, people don't literally die at work.


> then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein

I’m sorry are these supposed to be extremists? These are status quo western liberals, secular humanists, and science enthusiasts.

> retrograde

Is this a derogatory term in the human progress narrative?


Yes, they’re both very credulous.

This reads like word salad

TPOT?

Yes, that part of Twitter, tpot.

"many of those who participate were formerly part of the Rationalist and Effective Altruism movements. [...] What makes TPOT a "post-rational" community is an interest in topics that are not traditionally rationalist, such as spirituality, occultism and conspiracy theories."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat


Back in my day we just called these people crackpots.

This is supposed to be his ”manifesto”.

https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002

Doesn’t seem to me like he has a superiority complex. He is devastated by his mother’s illness and the actions of United Healthcare.


I don’t know that I would trust that to be his manifesto. The BBC article says it was handwritten.

Why would someone post a typed version rather than a photo of the real thing (which they would need to have to be able to type it up)?


Here's the handwritten one that was found on him.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto


Wasn't his family incredibly wealthy? Wouldn't they be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket?

All signs point to this being fake.

i wouldn't be sharing stuff like that unless you know for sure

To be fair, if you are very smart / quite determined to pick up a skill / have a good mentor, you can get good enough in a lot of skills, that you can pass off your work as professional quality.

I have seen this happen people do this with programming / CAD / 3D modeling / various crafts etc.


The reverse where people project insane complexity onto everything they don't understand is also true and common.

You see this all the time where people on HN, Reddit, wherever, will act as though roughing in the plumbing and electrical for a home addition is comparable in complexity and fraught with similar nuances as doing all the process electrical and plumbing for an industrial facility when it very much not.


It seems implausible that he was competent enough to locate his target and escape the day of yet so incompetent as to hold onto the gun. I think he definitely wanted to get caught.

I’m curious about what exactly prompted whoever called him in to become suspicious - was the profile released from photos good enough? Or was he acting suspiciously with his backpack?


Plus, the release of all these unofficial pictures, and his capture being paraded by the media. They're trying to set an example.

I don’t think people are over-estimating his competence. He set himself a goal and achieved it… getting away with it simply wasn’t important so it wasn’t the thing he obsessed over.

Although, if the evidence is damning and you don't want it found, keeping it on your person is not the worst idea. That way you know the only way they find any evidence is if they find you.

Even if you try to destroy the evidence, evidence of you destroying the evidence works just as well for a lot of cases.


The most likely scenario is that he was planning on not getting caught, saw the massive amount of support he had, then decided to attach his name to his actions.

Well his manifesto seems to imply that he is sacraficing himself and expects to suffer but that he beleives its the honorable thing to do.

Here's another option, combining the two.

- The intelligent individual is also self-absorbed and believed that they would be able to continue to kill CEOs without getting caught. A narcissistic streak that allowed them to make no attempt at concealing their identity in public. They kept the weapon in order to move to a new target (or they 3D printed an identical if the reports of a 3D printed gun are correct). They believed they would either not get caught or that the public would not turn them in. They may have envisioned themselves the Ted of Healthcare.


He was also probably watching the news.

At some point you know you’ve already been caught.


> Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.

Where he will finally get decent health care for free.


Decent health care? In prison? Are you serious?

Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

To be fair if you have the resources to continually sue the prison you can get a decent amount.

[flagged]


What do you mean? How is that boomer speak?

Cumpiler69 doubting FactKnower69 knowing his facts. What is the world coming to.

Disposing of evidence can sometimes be more incriminating than not.

Let's say he shuts up and gets a lawyer. His lawyer can say that maybe the real gunman noticed he looked similar, then switched bags on a bus. It's weak, but it's something.

If he tossed it in NYC, he leaves possible DNA at the scene. If he tosses it at home, the cops will likely find it and take his disposal as an admission of guilt.

IANAL but while I guess it's not good to have your lawyer run the Shaggy defence ("it wasn't me!") if the police have made an effort in the investigation then there's a surprising chance they'll find the evidence anyway.

At the very least that could be his rationale.

He didn't know if they had a van watching his house, and if his bins were being collected by the police. He might have been too scared and paranoid to do anything.


He could have stopped at any number of bridges along the way, filled the backpack with bricks, and tossed it into the river.

and could have been caught doing it.

I can see someone planning meticulously the murder, the immediate fleeing thereafter but not the rest. If I remember images, he wasn't wearing gloves so he may have had to clean it before he planned to get rid of it. Plus he may have hit hiccups in the process that may have derailed part of his plans. The fact he had cash both in local and foreign money probably means he had planned to move out of the country but was kind of waiting for the dust to settle.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: