Nothing has to be run for profit.
And it's an irrelevant statement. A non-profit healthcare outfit would still be responsible for saving and taking life.
I'm a software engineer with only a little legal background.
I'm none of the other things you listed. Most the prisoners I help are not pedophiles. And I only manage my product's server cluster because I don't have money yet to hire anyone. I'm not good at devops or networking. 🤷
Both in this particular case, I'm doing it pro se. I can't legally represent anyone, so I represent myself when the need arises and provide assistance to others who cannot afford help, usually prisoners. I'm focusing on 8th amendment violations such as excessive force claims and poor prison conditions. It's a useful form of activism, even if a suit is not ultimately successful. It costs them either way.
It is difficult to prove willful violation of rights (required for a criminal case) which is why it doesn't happen often, even while people's rights are violated routinely.
That's two or more people conspiring to violate rights. People still routinely have their Constitutional rights violated and it's not criminal. I'm literally litigating a § 1983 federal lawsuit right now. It's rarely criminal. Just stop spreading misinformation.
You're under the mistaken belief that it's criminal to violate Constitutional rights.
I blame people more than Microsoft. People were either duped or too lazy to say "Microsoft Teams" in full. It's not too crazy to have services like "Apple Music" because people aren't allowing Apple to control the word by just saying "Music" casually. People need to go back to saying "Microsoft Teams." Alas, it will never happen. 😒
Pretty sure they didn't commit a crime. And it's not uncommon for these things to happen in high profile cases. A "fair trial" is very difficult.
You didn't disprove my statement.
To disprove it, you would have to claim that these "sane countries" do not deny any life-saving treatment, thus never taking life. Yet every single one of them has limitations in their services. They're replacing the insurance denial with a system-level denial by means of a narrow scope of provided services. Insurance can't deny what's never provided.
So, for clarity, are you claiming that these "sane" healthcare systems never let people die due to treatment that is too expensive?
Brian Robert Thompson, the serial killer that murdered 40,000 innocent people ... He was a mass murderer personally responsible for a dozen 9/11s. He literally dwarfed the body count of Osama bin Ladin.
I know you're trying to cope with your bloodlust by dehumanizing him as much as possible. But this sort of logic makes anyone with a dollar in their pocket into a murderer. It's insane, and you know it.
No, usually they have a new trial. If there is prosecutorial misconduct, it could be dismissed with prejudice. It's pretty rare
Healthcare businesses will always be responsible for saving and taking life. Are you wanting to dissuade anyone from ever working in healthcare and thus dismantle it entirely?