The framing for this is that murder is bad; however there are exceptions to that. One such exception is that self defense of oneself or self defense of another provides a (morally and legally) justified basis for murder. If someone is trying to murder you or someone else, and you murder that person to prevent this, then you have engaged in self defense, which is justified.
The argument is that there is insufficent evidence to demonstrate that Luigi was the person who committed the murder at issue. However, even if it can be proved that Luigi did in fact commit this murder, the argument is that it was justified as an act of self defense to protect himself/others from being killed by the decedent’s actions. This requires viewing violence as something that is structural and systemic, and not just direct and immediately physical. Under the former approach, Luigi engaged in self defense; under the latter, he did not.
The American legal system generally only recognizes the latter as a valid legal defense. But this is irrelevant to the moral question of whether it was justified; and, even to the legal question, we can ask why our system does not recognize structural violence as criminal violence. The answer to that lies in who writes the laws, or, rather, who pays for the laws to be written. All nations have a ruling class who are the principal beneficiaries of the legal system; the US is no different
See my problem with this argument, is if you’re all so determined for Luigi to have a fair trial to defend the position of self defence, shouldn’t that CEO have had a fair trial rather than be extra judicially killed too?
He killed a guy. So he did.
He killed a corpo. So he did nothing wrong.
Fuck the opinions around here are unhinged.
Why did you want that person killed?
Because he was a murderer and he would kill again if he was allowed to live.
So you agree killing is bad?
The framing for this is that murder is bad; however there are exceptions to that. One such exception is that self defense of oneself or self defense of another provides a (morally and legally) justified basis for murder. If someone is trying to murder you or someone else, and you murder that person to prevent this, then you have engaged in self defense, which is justified.
The argument is that there is insufficent evidence to demonstrate that Luigi was the person who committed the murder at issue. However, even if it can be proved that Luigi did in fact commit this murder, the argument is that it was justified as an act of self defense to protect himself/others from being killed by the decedent’s actions. This requires viewing violence as something that is structural and systemic, and not just direct and immediately physical. Under the former approach, Luigi engaged in self defense; under the latter, he did not.
The American legal system generally only recognizes the latter as a valid legal defense. But this is irrelevant to the moral question of whether it was justified; and, even to the legal question, we can ask why our system does not recognize structural violence as criminal violence. The answer to that lies in who writes the laws, or, rather, who pays for the laws to be written. All nations have a ruling class who are the principal beneficiaries of the legal system; the US is no different
See my problem with this argument, is if you’re all so determined for Luigi to have a fair trial to defend the position of self defence, shouldn’t that CEO have had a fair trial rather than be extra judicially killed too?
Google “Paradox of tolerance”.
Is it bad to kill a mass murderer? I say it’s not.