Murder is bad, mkay?

Anatomy of a shooting

Mugshot by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

The murder of health insurance executive Brian Thompson in Midtown Manhattan, likely by Luigi Mangione, on December 4th of last year has become the most closely followed true-crime story since the disappearance and murder of Gabby Petito. From the morning of the murder until Mangione’s arrest in Pennsylvania five days later, conspiracy theories rocketed around the internet. Attention only increased after Mangione was captured. The story has all the facets of a movie come to life. The murder of a successful executive, bullet casings with "delay," "deny," and "depose" written on them, a murder suspect with movie star looks. It’s Hollywood, or at least Lifetime, realized.

The biggest surprise, however, was the reaction of the general public. Instead of universal condemnation, the reactions to the murder was not only mixed but often one of celebration. UnitedHealthcare, the company Brian Thompson worked for, had to turn off comments on LinkedIn and Facebook after tens of thousands of people liked and laughed at the announcement of his death. Every post on Reddit about the murder generated far more jokes than commiserations. Large segments of the general public, rather than condemning the murder, applauded it. The audience at a recent taping of Saturday Night Life literally cheered when Mangione was mentioned. This support runs deep. An incredible 41% of survey respondents between the ages of 18-29 said that the murder was at least partly acceptable. A survey of Princeton students found that almost twice as many students thought the murder was “completely justified” compared to purely “in the wrong”. This is not just a few keyboard warriors or campus protesters. A large segment of the American public feels this murder was, at least in part, appropriate. There is a family in suburban Minneapolis, a family that no one knew existed until last month, that is watching the murder of one of their own openly celebrated by their country.

This is insane.

First, and this needs to be said loudly and clearly, it appears Luigi Mangione has no personal grievance against UnitedHealthcare. He is not, and has never been, a customer of the company. Those who assumed that the killer must have been denied health coverage, or had a loved one had coverage denied, have so far come up empty. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s statement, “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system.” is aging faster than milk left out in the sun. The story so far is that Mangione had lingering back issues, but nothing points to any connection between him and UnitedHealthcare.

Second, for those who believe that if Mangione had a claim denied that would partially justify the killing, what’s the overarching moral rule that makes this acceptable? Is it in line with the thinking of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), who said, “All of that pain that people have experienced is being concentrated on this event. It’s really important that we take a step back, this is not to comment and this is not to say that an act of violence is justified, but I think for anyone who is confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them.”

Think very, very carefully before endorsing this type of thinking. “act of violence” is doing a tremendous lift here. The premise and conclusion of AOC’s statement are wrong. First the premise. Being denied a health insurance claim is serious. It often results in pain and suffering. It can result in death. It is not, however, an act of violence. If it was, then a lot of decisions made in healthcare are. If an insurance company refusing to pay for a claim is an act of violence, then so too is a doctor refusing to do work pro bono. So too is a hospital refusing to waive fees. As Noah Smith points out, health insurance companies are often given the role of villain in the healthcare industry, but they aren’t responsible for the high costs of healthcare. For that, look toward the healthcare providers, who make far more money in revenue and profit than insurance companies.

Second, consider the conclusion. Even if being denied a claim was an act of violence, our society has decided that victims of violence are not allowed to seek their own retribution. Even victims of heinous crimes, where the perpetrator is known without a doubt (or even admits guilt), are never allowed to deliver the punishment. This is a good thing. The murder of Brian Thompson was not an eye-for-eye event. But even if it was, eye-for-eye punishments are not something we should start condoning. Thinking about the bigger picture, it immediately becomes clear that everyone should push back on the idea that those who feel they are victims of violence should be able to met out their own revenge. Again, if health insurance employees can be held to that standard, then certainly healthcare providers can. I do not want to live in a world where surgeons who kill patients are being murdered in the street, or where hospital executives are killed for not providing discounted treatment.

Outside of healthcare, many, many other professions would also be at risk under this standard. Consider public officials that fail at their jobs, and that failure results in death. Maui Emergency Management Agency Administrator Herman Andaya decided not to activate Maui’s emergency sirens during the Lahaina wildfires, an act that put many in harm’s way and likely cost many lives. The former Uvalde, Texas schools police chief has received (appropriate) criticism for his unfathomable conduct in the wake of the Robb Elementary school shooting. His actions probably led to multiple deaths. It would still be wrong to murder either of them. If either did something criminal, then it is up to the justice system to sort it out. We do not want to live in a world where negligence or even malice gives a pass for vigilante justice.

For all the novelty of the Thompson murder, many of the reactions that seem unusual at first glance are predictable. Some have been surprised at the amount of support Mangione has received since his arrest. It should not be surprising at all. Ted Bundy proved that if you’re good looking people will support you regardless of your actions. Ted Bundy, that man who brutally kidnapped, raped, and murdered dozens of women still had a fan club of young women who religiously attended his trial. He even got married and had a child while incarcerated. If people rooted for Ted Bundy, we shouldn’t be surprised people are taking Mangione’s side today. Throw in the gut appeal of vigilante justice and the common view that Mangione is an underdog, and you have a compelling figure. Never mind that Mangione is an Ivy League graduate from an affluent family.

The attempted smearing of Brian Thompson’s life is also nothing new. Commentators online have spread a series of rumors about his life. Along with his documented DUI conviction in 2017, I’ve seen allegations of insider trading, marital infidelity, and other transgressions. It’s all pretty gross, but not unprecedented. It brings to mind the murder of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old man who was shot and killed by a Dallas policewoman who accidentally entered Jean’s apartment thinking it was her own and mistook him for an intruder. Dallas police immediately reported that they had found 10 grams of marijuana and a marijuana grinder in Jean’s apartment. Of course there was never any evidence or accusation that his stash of weed had anything to do with his murder. Dallas police knew this, they just wanted to attack the moral character of a dead man. Neither do any of Thompson’s personal transgressions, real or imaginary, have to do with his murder. Smearing the victim has always been done by bad actors to convince people those who are murdered must have been doing something wrong, and thus partially deserved their fate. These arguments are appealing because we all want to believe that the world is just, even though we all know it isn’t.

Finally, consider what would happen if vigilante justice becomes commonplace. Those who are sympathetic to Luigi Mangione are mainly on the left. They see Mangione as a fighter for the oppressed, and Thompson as an oppressor. Thus, his murder was at least partially warranted. That’s disgusting on the surface, but it would behoove those who think killing oppressors is fine to play that mindset out to it’s logical conclusion. If killing those who have wronged you becomes a thing, it won’t stop at killing those the left view as oppressors. Once killing oppressors of the left becomes ok, then it will also be ok to kill oppressors of the right.

There are over 300 million firearms in the United States. How many of them do you think are owned by the 25 percent of Princeton students who say Thompson’s killing was justified? It could well be in the single digits. There are many Americans who are armed to the teeth, and they do not share the same subjective feelings of violence as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is those on the right that hold most of the weapons and know how to use them. They have their own grievances, often against people that those on the left would consider neutral or even virtuous. In a world where vigilante justice is acceptable, those on the left will lose.

Murder is bad. Let’s keep it that way.