Arguably
trying to intimidate CEOs and/or to change corporations’ policies was trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
The judge said “This is different.”
I do not hesitate to disconcur with judges. I’m just not so sure about this one.
Is there a manifesto or statement he has made that suggests this was his motive?
I don’t know.
He strikes me as more like the online rant kind of guy.
Not sure he wrote much pen-on-paper.
Did he do any of htat? Like make a tik toc saying he was doing this for XYZ? I might not be aware of it. But without something like that, I just don’t see how you can call it terrorism.
A quick Copilot search does not turn up any hard compelling evidence that he intended to intimdate people outside United Healthcare.
I think that WAS his intention,
but the law does not ask what I think.
Based on available evidence, it could be argued
his beef was with United and only United, or with just a few companies etc.
I really haven’t been paying much attention to this guy lately, but my take has been, he was personally offended by this corp and he acted on his feelings. It resonated in some twisted way because millions of others of Americans have been ffended by health insurance companies led by multi-millionaires.
Proving that resonance was intentional would require some evidence that I just haven’t seen.
I didn’t say he was a successful terrorist. The problem with the tactic of terrorism is it often fails to instill the response desired by the terrorist, and supporters of what ever position the terrorist is trying to achieve with the act.
I dont think he was attempting political change but his actions tapped into a well of hatred that so many have for health insurance companies, rightly or wrongly their reality is they pay huge sums of money each month and when it comes time to claim they are hit by a wall of bureaucracy and ultimately claim denials.
The United Health CEO became representative of everything that is wrong with our health care delivery system. People did not see him from a human perspective but someone that made millions off the suffering of others.
These healthcare CEOs make decsions that impact the financial security of millions of Americans and are paid more in a year than most people will earn in a year.
It is hard for the majority of working people to empathize with someone like that.
Where was the “right” when everyone was all over social medial gloating over about the CEOs murder? Nowhere, politicians did not demand people be fired etc. but somehow Kirk is off limits. No criticism of his message of the beliefs he shared is allowed.
We are becoming way too comfortable in applying the label terrorist to criminal actions.
I kind of agree from what I read about the CEO killer and it is reprehensive. And like I said, I don’t know the full details, but I’m not sure if this was political or what they were saying on forums that one of his family members or himself was not coverage or something like that for a procedure.
But the case with Kirk is definitely domestic terrorism in my book the man was shot tor saying political things people don’t like. Plus a lot of people who don’t really know him or follow him. Don’t realize how he big he was for the whole Maga movement, especially for the young voters.
Notice when it’s a leftist who does it there is never a motive and it’s not terrorism. It’s all about how the stats are being manipulated Kash Patel confirmed Merrick Garland and Wray are the ones who agreed to pay a million to Page and Strzok. But the FBI wasn’t political at all under Biden. It’s only political when Patel is investigating left wing groups for ties to Kirk’s assassination. He said there are 20 people being questioned in connection to.
Point 3 easy IMO.
Oh really?
His purpose in this assassination wasn’t to send a message to other healthcare providers?
Agreed. Neither this nor Kirk are examples of terrorism
Because it’s left wing and you don’t want it counted, If this isn’t terrorism neither is the people in Minnesota being shot, nor is the shooting of Gabby Gifford. The Kirk one was 100% political.
nope. strictly was after UHC.
Allan
The groupthink is powerful in this one.
IMO, I never thought the terrorism charge would stick with Luigi.
strong textAgreed. Terrorism requires a target that affects the wheels of society as a whole. Had Luigi bombed a hospital that could been said to be terrorism. Had the kid in Utah shot the governor instead of Kirk, that would have been terrorism.
Like Nemesis said, we are getting way too eager to throw the term terrorist around.
Truth…
Hannity Community
The official community forum of Sean Hannity. Join the conversation with fellow conservatives on the issues that matter most.