Moderators Delete Reddit Thread as Doctors Torch Dead UnitedHealthcare CEO (opens in new tab)

How about something like the "Denied Claim Hero"?

Wouldn't positive wording be more appropriate given the public response?

> Don't be greedy, or The 3D-Killer will go after you next!

It'd feed into wording something like "Might need to re-think automatically denying that claim, as the Denied Claim Hero is still at large".

When your business is cost control on human life, it's not surprising that decency goes out the door.

Also the media seem to have settled on "Citi Bike Assassin."

> Meanwhile the assassin needs a name.. the Midtown Hilton Shooter? The 3D Killer?

Sickario.

I’m partial to the Claim Avenger

>Meanwhile the assassin needs a name.. the Midtown Hilton Shooter? The 3D Killer?

I'm partial to the Chief Executive Offerer.

I am reminded of the right-wing cop in Oregon who burned a ballot box and added some "free Gaza" vandalism. Specifically, this is a compelling argument that the shooter likely wasn't an outside vigilante:

  The thing that struck me was the fact that [the shooter] knew where [Thompson] was going to be and when he was going to be there. Generally, you get that information by observing the individual. You find their schedule and their routine, and then you intercept them somewhere along the line on their routine. This was obviously not a routine setting. So he had to have some reason to believe that Thompson was going to be coming out of that door at an approximate time to be able to lay in wait. Because it’s Manhattan, standing around waiting risks the likelihood of being challenged by a cop or security guard coming by, which suggests that he had reason to know when the guy was going to be coming out. It suggests some sort of inside information.

Via https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/12/unitedhealthcare...

I'm not exaggerating for hyperbole: literally every single time I've ever seen a comment online of the form "why isn't the MSM talking about X", I've clicked over to the homepage of the New York Times and seen X right there.

Archive.is version NYTimes story for paywall [1]

[1] https://archive.is/DiRbs

Also curious how many businesses in that area had problems with their CCTV cameras around that time?

"Sorry officer, it looks like the camera wasn't recording" type of thing.

It would be naive to think that it will be the same. This one has too much media attention.

I am sure the response and resources will be exactly the same, and if he is caught the DA will file the same charges with the same recommendations and the Judge will apply the same standards.

Just like the man who attacked Paul Pelosi in San Fransisco had the same standards applied to him. I am glad that the state of CA is so strict on crime that a first time offender(who has mental health issues) convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, threatening a family member of a public official, kidnapping, and threatening a witness is given life in prison.

Or the police response when someone is pushed and their cellphone is stolen. >Boxer, 80, was assaulted in the Jack London Square neighborhood. "The assailant pushed her in the back, stole her cell phone and jumped in a waiting car. She is thankful that she was not seriously injured,"

>I am working on the pier in Alameda right across the channel. There were a ton of police cars and a chopper there and I was wondering what the commotion was. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/oscbxf/comment/h6nmek...

They should be allowed to, but their decisions should be public. Currently Reddit moderators are able to arbitrarily and secretly remove posts and comments, even when doing so goes directly against the stated goals and published rules of their community.

They should. However, they should not be allowed to misrepresent their rules. I know a few subreddits that claim to be unbiased (to attract subscribers) but engage in highly selective moderation. While it’s ok to do so, such subreddits should be forced to explicitly declare their leanings and moderation policies in the description.

It could go either way. If the purpose of the community is to benefit the moderators, they should have more control to censor. If the purpose of the community is to benefit the users, they should have more freedom in what they're allowed to say.