Short preamble: I am European. Here, people rarely die or go bankrupt from healthcare. They will just get worse treatment and longer waiting times than the richer. So, I definitely lack personal anger and grief.
But I still don't understand the support for the shooter. Do you want to live in a world of vigilantism, where live and death is decided by whoever is deranged enough to be able to directly take someone's live. That would just end in a brutal police state or complete anarchy where the most violent survive.
I also don't understand people saying that that ceo was a murderer. For murder you have to plan and wish for the death of an individual. He, at worst, did not care.
Why did he specifically deserve to die? People could have decided to use a different insurance or pay for treatment themselves.
The ceo of the insurance company is not the one driving up the prices for healthcare. It's pharma companies and their stockholders.
So, how much in stocks do you need to have for a death sentence. A million, a thousand a hundred dollars? What about the lawyers defending the patents on drugs? Kill them or just cut off an arm? How do you punish their assistants and interns? What about the scientists that make the drugs. They decided to work for a company that raises prices instead of one that sells cheap biosimilars.
Off with their head, I assume?
The politicians that allowed this system to flourish surely get a bullet through their head, but what about the people who voted for the status quo instead of protesting? This list could go on and on.
Murder is not such a heinous act because of the loss of a live. It's because once people start deciding who deserves to die, the spiral goes down lower and lower till it reaches everyone who does not 100% support your cause.
The ceo was probably an asshole with no regard for human life. But just because he was paid better does not make him more responsible. It is a broken system, and killing one person does nothing. Instead of supporting a murderer go on strike or be nice to your neighbors. Protest for a better system instead of idolizing a poor soul that has been driven to do an understandable but still unforgivable act of violence.
Would you not say Putin's death would have an overall benefit to people at large? Or Assad's death?
America is in oligarchy and citizens lives will only ever get better with violent revolution against the rich, since peaceful protest is made to be impossible or as ineffective as the rich have demanded.
I personally think there is an ethical distinction between what Thompson did - deciding to not save someone's life - and what Putin does -ordering someone's murder.
So, even assuming both deaths have a positive impact, they are not equally justified.
Further, Putin is the official head of state, giving him a greater responsibility than one of multiple ceos in multiple fields responsible.
And about your call for civil war: the US' wealth depends on its workforce, in distinction to countries like Syria where the wealth comes from natural resources.
Therefore, a long-lasting general strike would force the government to basically accept any demands. Of course, such a strike would negatively impact people's lives. They may lose housing, healthcare, and more. Union busters would threaten, hurt, or kill people. But the general populous would still suffer less than in a full-out civil war.
So, if your movement does have the necessary support, that is the more ethical option. And if it does not have the support to get the country to stand still by strike, I would argue it also lacks the necessary support to win a civil war