Peter Schorsch
Floridians are divided in their emotional and philosophical reactions to the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by accused killer Luigi Mangione, according to Sachs Media’s latest survey, exposing deep generational and political rifts in attitudes toward vigilante justice.
“We’ve all seen – and many of us have been startled by – celebrations on social media of a cold-blooded murder of a man because of the job he held, matched by the heroization of the young man alleged to have carried out this act of violence,” said Karen Cyphers, partner at Sachs Media and faculty at Florida State University, who conducted the research. “We wanted to know how widespread or normalized these sentiments are, both in context to this particular assassination and to vigilante justice more broadly.”
According to the poll, which was conducted via a random sample of the Florida Voter File on Dec. 12-14, nine out of 10 Florida voters are aware of Thompson’s assassination, a story that has captivated the state and the nation. While various emotions were expressed, the majority were negative, with 57% reporting feelings of anger, sadness or fear.
Yet, 6% of respondents voiced gratification, a sentiment disproportionately shared by younger voters and Democrats — 14% of those under 45 and 11% of Democrats admitted to this reaction.
Will the murder spark change … and what if it does?
Public opinion is split on the potential fallout from the assassination. While about 28% said they think it could lead to a “revolution” of sorts where the public demands changes (28%), and 17% believe it could lead to positive changes in the health insurance industry, nearly half (46%) fear it could inspire copycat attacks.
Others predict more substantial legal consequences for vigilantes (23%), negative impacts on the healthcare system (7%), or no significant change at all (31%).
What if this execution somehow led to positive changes in the health insurance industry? If that were the case, 17% say the ends would have justified the means. In other words, if killing this CEO resulted in something good for others, nearly 1 in 5 believe the killing would be therefore justified. Indeed, only 63% said “definitely no” – that the ends would NOT justify the means regardless of what comes of it.
Again, there are differences between parties and age groups in these responses: 24% of Democrats believe the ends would justify the means if good things did come out of the murder, compared with 6% of Republicans. Similarly, 39% of those under age 45 feel this way compared with just 8% of those ages 45 and older.
Shared experiences, divergent philosophies
Interestingly, attitudes toward vigilante justice do not appear to stem from personal experiences with health insurance. Equal proportions of Democrats (67%) and Republicans (71%) and young (69%) and older (72%) alike reported having had a negative personal experience with the health insurance industry in the past, and about equal numbers across parties and age groups cited an experience with a denied claim for themselves or a dependent child – an experience that about 49% of Floridians say they’ve had in the prior three years.
“The takeaway here is that people from all walks of life have about the same type of experience with health insurance claims denials, and yet have different beliefs about how this type of experience should be handled,” Cyphers said. “This survey finds no differences whatsoever between age groups or political parties in experiences with health insurance – and yet finds stark differences in acceptance of an ‘ends justify means’ mentality to deal with grievances.”
Testing the boundaries of sympathy
To delve deeper and provide additional context to the findings, Sachs Media used an experiment built into the survey to test responses to various provocative statements, similar to some seen on social media:
“I do not feel sympathy for the assassination of a ___________. A person’s actions in life or business can erase their inherent worth. Some vigilante justice killings are deserved.”
In that blank, half of the respondents were randomly assigned to see the phrase “health care CEO.” In contrast, the other half saw “supporter of Israel” – another issue that Sachs Media has extensively tracked in other surveys.
Agreement was 24% among those presented with “health care CEO,” compared to 10% among those shown “supporter of Israel.” That said, just 61% of those who saw “health care CEO” were in complete disagreement with the statement (meaning about 4 in 10 were ambivalent or in agreement), while 72% of those who saw “supporter of Israel” were in complete disagreement (meaning about 3 in 10 were ambivalent or in agreement).
Looking only at statements of agreement, there are significant differences in response to both messages by party and age.
Among those who saw the statement regarding the vigilante killing of a health care CEO, 28% of Democrats agreed, compared with 6% of Republicans. Even more stark: 50% of those under age 45 expressed agreement compared with 16% of those over age 45.
The agreement followed a similar pattern among those who saw the statement regarding a vigilante killing of a supporter of Israel: 16% of Democrats who saw this message agreed compared with 5% of Republicans, and 26% of those under age 45 expressed agreement compared with just 5% of those ages 45 and older.
“The takeaway is that no matter how you cut it – whether in terms of overt agreement or ambivalence that would leave the door open for agreement – a significant portion of Floridians appear willing to excuse acts of violence if the motive aligns with their own beliefs or complaints,” Cyphers said. “A lack of sympathy may be personal, but an overt celebration or rationalization of violence is troubling.”
Broader implications
This trend is not confined to highly publicized news. When told about a recent incident in California involving a Palestinian driver striking an Israeli American with his car after a verbal dispute, only 5% of survey respondents had heard of it – with the remaining close to divided on whether the incident was real (60%) or fake news (40%). After being briefed that this event did occur, 11% believed the Palestinian’s actions were likely justified, with rates climbing to 15% among Democrats and 26% among voters under 45.
By contrast, only 8% of Republicans and 5% of older voters shared this view.
“These findings aren’t a fluke. The through-line between the murder of a high-profile CEO and a barely publicized attack on an Israeli American is that both events test how people reconcile their values with violent actions against individuals perceived as symbolizing or representing broader systems or conflicts,” Cyphers said. “To paraphrase Charles Cooke, our rejection of murder shouldn’t be contingent on the nature of the victim, his assumed politics, or the legal actions he takes within complicated systems.”
These findings illuminate profound questions about the evolving nature of justice, morality, and accountability in a polarized society.
As Florida and the nation continue to grapple with both high-profile and barely noticed violent events, the debate over vigilante justice will likely remain a flashpoint, reflecting deeper cultural and generational divides.
