Why Luigi Mangione Decided Against Bombing UnitedHealthcare
He cared about messaging effectiveness and influence
It’s been well reported that alleged murderer Luigi Mangione was resentful and vengeful at the time of the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in 2024. Yet news has emerged from Mangione’s diary entries that has revealed more specifically what he was thinking and what he chose not to do and why, per a story written by Dalia Faheid at CNN.
One major finding is how Mangione disliked the Unabomber’s approach and decided to do things differently because of the court of public opinion costs that Ted Kaczynski had to pay for his anger, violence and murders as a catalyst for wanted change.
“In August 2024, roughly four months before he allegedly shot and killed Thompson in midtown Manhattan, Mangione wrote in his diary: ‘I finally feel confident about what I will do. The details are coming together. And I don’t feel any doubt about whether it’s right/justified. I’m glad-in a way-that I’ve procrastinated bc (because) it allowed me to learn more about (UnitedHealthcare),” Faheid reported.
Mangione was confident in what he saw as his morally-superior positioning about an industry wrongdoing and evil against society and didn’t feel any emotional, psychological conflict for what he was about to allegedly do.
“The target is insurance. It checks every box,” he wrote in the August 15 entry.
In October, there was an entry that further provided insight into Mangione’s conclusions and judgment.
“1.5 months (away from his alleged act). The investor conference is a true windfall. It embodies everything wrong with our health system, and-most importantly-the message becomes self-evident. The problem with most revolutionary acts is that the message is lost on normies (everyday people),” he wrote.
His arrogance is strong here. Mangione has the strongest of convictions and sees himself as a change agent for good. Yet he looks down on society in the process.
“Bombs = terrorism”
Mangione, who allegedly killed Thompson with a ghost gun, didn’t respect bombers.
“They commit an atrocity whose horror either outweighs the impact of their message, or whose distance from their message prevents normies from connecting the dots,” he wrote.
“Do you bomb the HQ (headquarters)? No. Bombs = terrorism,” Mangione wrote.
While bombing gets attention, in his mind, it was wrongful conduct and demands the focus of the public on the attack instead of the larger message a perpetrator may hope to send.
“Such actions appear (to be) the unjustified anger of someone who simply got sick/had bad luck and took their frustration out on the insurance industry, while recklessly endangering countless employees,” Mangione wrote.
He didn’t want to kill people who were not responsible for the wrong and didn’t want to come across as being random in his violence and out of control.
The reason Thompson was chosen as a target was stated, with Mangione saying such an approach, unlike a bombing, was “precise and doesn’t risk innocents,” and could bring attention to the “greed” of its attendees.
He saw bombing as a moral and strategic wrong but a murder was deemed reasonable, acceptable, helpful and necessary.
“He also appears to reference the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, calling such attacks ‘counter-productive’ because they would lose public support,” Faheid reported.
“Normies categorize him as an insane serial killer, (and) focus on the act/atrocities themselves, and dismiss his ideas,” Mangione wrote.
“And most importantly — by committing indiscriminate atrocities he becomes a monster, which makes his ideas those of a monster, no matter how true. He crosses the line from revolutionary anarchist to terrorist — the worst thing a person can be.”
Mangione knew bombing UnitedHealthcare would be disastrous to what he wanted to happen: to shake up the healthcare system and force significant improvements.
He didn’t want to see himself as a “monster” and “terrorist” and have his ideas in the background or minimized in contrast to the act of bombing and killing innocent people. He didn’t see a CEO as innocent so he didn’t see his alleged act as wrong and didn’t see himself and his reputation as wrong.
Mangione understood that the Unabomber made egregious errors in his attempt to strike back at a country going the wrong direction and didn’t repeat Kaczynski’s action yet he didn’t understand that allegedly murdering someone in the street was also criminal and would be deemed morally repugnant.
To some, Mangione is worthy of support and praise.
What's next? Will he be judged as one who was a catalyst for more ethical and moral business practices from healthcare companies or be judged by the masses as just another radical, violent person and (alleged) murderer, largely forgotten for raging against the status quo in unacceptable ways.
Michael Toebe is the specialist at Reputation Intelligence, helping individuals and organizations with matters of credibility, trust, decision analysis, communications, relationships and reputation.
You can DM him on Substack or contact him below for consulting, risk analysis, coaching, ongoing advisory, a variety of proactive and responsive communications and reputation (not legal) representation.
Be sure to take a look at the Reputation Intelligence guides and services for sale. If subscribing to this newsletter is of interest to you or someone you know, please click the “subscribe now” button to see the choices.