I’m annoyed that a lot of the sites I browse don’t have RSS feeds, and I’ve had to do some really tiresome hacks just to get some to work (for example, even tools like FreshRSS’s HTML parser doesn’t tell you the reason a feed broke, so there’s a dozen different things to adjust blindly until it works).

RSS saves me so much time, I used to waste hours just cycling through pages to see if any updated.

I can’t remember anyone justifying out of personal dislike or popularity. Their justification is that this person’s actions are mass social murder, suggesting that such anti-social people deserve to be killed if the legal system refuses to punish and deter them. The fact that people generally hate a mass killer is incidental, it’s not the reason they deserve a punishment.

There are good arguments against vigilantism in general, and while I don’t fully agree in this specific case, I respect them as valid reasons. But to say this assassin is being given a free pass simply because people don’t like the victim is absurd.

He didn’t get murdered for being unpopular.

Morality is subjective, no real system can definitively decide what is evil. But in this case we’re talking about, it’s pretty clear cut that the CEO was a willful threat to the health of millions. This isn’t some abstract slippery slope of dubious vigilantism, might as well be claiming that the assassination attempts on Hitler were a gateway to Mad Max dystopia.

No it isn’t.

I’d sooner suck ““terrorist”” cock than dead CEO cock. I stand on the side of the millions of victims who are in poverty or dead because of this executed creep’s orders. Where do you stand?

We’ve collectively agreed to put the law above

I don’t remember agreeing to these laws. I break the dumbest ones constantly. Laws are made by politicians who are controlled by the owning class. They are enforced on us, not developed by us. That’s why corporations and their board of directors can rape the earth and kill thousands and millions while you and me can get jailed for petty little things like copying textbooks too much or buying fun smokable plants.

Who’s he going to pick next?

This was not a random or petty attack. Their message on the bullet casings makes it clear they were attacking this person because they’ve knowingly helped enable incomprehensible amounts of human suffering on a scale of millions.

I understand that vigilantism, speaking generally, has its own serious dangers. But speaking specifically, this person is clearly not a threat to people who aren’t legalized mass murderers. Who’s he going to pick next? Probably the CEO of the second most abusive healthcare insurer.

That said, obviously with limited resources the police have to pick what cases take priority over others.

The police follow the law. The law is defined by politicians, who are effectively purchased by the owner class. The police were never going to arrest that CEO for their crimes against humanity, it would be illegal for them to do it out of the public interest. Direct vigilantism was the only realistic chance at deterrence in this situation.

because they’re too busy chasing down all those people who hurt others’ fee-fees by misgendering them

Weird fantasy but ok.

Interesting take, but on the other hand I suspect that nothing new would be learned. afaik their main forensics techniques aren’t really a mystery, there are thousands of cases to learn from.

From whom?

people who think premeditated homicide can be justified

This is, evidently, a common mainstream view. If we lived in a world where the legal system actually worked and was a viable option for dealing with them non-violently, perhaps this view wouldn’t be popular, but the working class can’t afford to pretend the system is fair. Just like citizens defending against a military invasion, sometimes homicide is the only effective action left to try.

That’s not true.

Literally every single human alive has posted on Lemmy.com in enthusiastic support of the assassin. Even you are posting how you think their murdering was justified! That’s a proven fact, you can check it on Wikipedia.

Ehh, yes, I suppose I was being intentionally dense in a way, overlooking the point of unity, because I believe events like this show us exactly why the left-right framework should be fought; the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are unified when it comes to class conflict! The real split lies in who is the owner class and who isn’t.

I was regrettably blunt and antagonistic, sorry.

The repeated mention of “jury nullification” here is a cop-out.

Jury nullification is essentially an admission that the law itself is conditionally unjust and the popular belief is that it should be ignored this time, nullified. So why pretend the legal system is always valid in the first place? I do not see the legal system as fair or representative of the people; if it was, this assassination wouldn’t have ever happened. The laws are made by politicians and the politicians represent the owner class, those with enough money to purchase politics.

If you don’t want to see the assassin prosecuted, if you too “didn’t see anything”, then why insist “murder is murder” when you clearly think this one doesn’t deserve equal treatment? It’s utopian idealism, the kind of rule that holds true in an ignorant vacuum experiment but not in this unfair rigged game of a world.

The appropriate sentence for this crime is: “Keep up the important work.”

“Right” and “Left” are meaningless words in politics which have no concrete definition, have no useful material basis, are relative to context, and group contradictory ideologies together into a nonsensical strawman. The left-right spectrum just isn’t a meaningful way of interpreting politics.

Case in point: “right-leaning” mass media is generally defending the CEO, while others we would consider “right” are pro-shooter.

True, the mass murderer wasn’t caught. They were assassinated on video. You can watch it if you want proof.

No it isn’t. Neither major party has used their power to fix this system. Both have had ample opportunity in the many past decades.

Due to the dominance of the FPTP system’s spoiler effect and of the two-party system, we can’t reasonably expect a mass shift to third parties. Therefore, of the two viable parties, neither will change the system. No realistic voting behavior indicates support of the broken system - if anything the lowering voter turnout is a general indication that they don’t support the system.

That’s obviously not their logic. This is hilarious to read.

Further, legality should not be considered a measure of justice. The best thing to do is often illegal. Laws are made by politicians, and politicians are overwhelmingly representing the owning class, not typical people, so the utopian idea that laws are fair is completely ignorant of the real legal and political system defining them.