Summary

Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in a premeditated attack outside the New York Hilton Midtown before speaking at an investor conference.

The gunman, still at large, fired multiple times, leaving shell casings marked with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.”

Authorities suggest Thompson was targeted but remain unclear on the motive. His wife confirmed prior threats against him.

Analysts speculate a possible vendetta tied to his company. The case raises questions about executive security, as Thompson lacked personal protection despite known risks.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Absolutely, hence why they do have to say that the motive is unclear. While we all have strong theories about why this happened, there are plenty of other possibilities that have to be considered. Could have been taken out by his family for insurance money, could have been a business rival, the guy might have gotten in shit with the mob. At this point they just don’t know.

    • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      The impression I got from when I lived in the US is that at his level, US oligarchs generally don’t like getting their hands dirty and there are strong communal disincentives to disrespecting “honour among thieves” laws. All the oligarchs groups will gang up on you if you use direct violence against another oligarch.

      From what I’ve read, the “mob” in the US largely has no power, definitely nothing on the level of Brian Thompson. Even transnational groups (Mexican cartels, EU gangs, central American gangs) keep a low profile in the US and make a concentrated effort to avoid publicity.

      I will admit, family issues is a possibility. Difficult to say. The business rivalry or mob connection doesn’t seem even in the realm of possibility, but I could be wrong.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Exactly. We just don’t have enough information yet and it is just silly to assume this is some sort of just world where people behind atrocities that are subsequently murdered are murdered because of those atrocities.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        He wrote Deny, defend, depose on the bullets. That’s him speaking the language that the insurance industry uses. I would say that broadly, we know his motive. Who the company denied a claim for is the only real question here.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            No I don’t think it has anything to do with Palestine, and everything to do with this book

            https://delaydenydefend.com/

            He switched delay to depose to send a clear message to the insurance industry. That message being, “there’s a fourth step that you fuckers have forgotten in your three step strategy.”

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              13 days ago

              Maybe you should have at least read the name of the URL. I didn’t say that this has anything to do with Palestine.

              Please, if you’re not going to read the article, at least read the name of the URL and then respond to me accordingly.

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                13 days ago

                I see what you are asking now. I can absolutely see that could be someone who was pro-palestinian setting ballot boxes on fire. It could be a false flag, but I’m not convinced either way.

                This guy didn’t have a good familiarity with his weapon. If he had test fired before he killed the CEO, he would have known that the spring on the gun was too strong for the ammo he was carrying and been able to swap one of the two out for a cleaner hit. That fact alone pretty much rules out a hired hitman. I’m no hitman, and I have much better familiarity with all my weapons than this guy seems to have had with his.