This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Assuming they catch him, it’s part of the process.
No matter how you cut it, no matter how much you agree with how actions, and whatever reason he may have had, murder isn’t something that can be dismissed when it is an act of its own. It has to be prosecuted.
Now, you might notice that italics. When murder is done as part of war, it isn’t murder any more, it’s an enemy casualty, and isn’t typically going to be prosecuted as murder.
If what the guy did is part of a bigger movement, and that movement ends up with enough changes, it might be treated as no different than a soldier shooting a target on a battlefield. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, I’m saying that if power shifts enough, the country changes enough, a killer becomes a hero.
If that’s what it turns out to be, trying to prosecute it as murder would be a joke, a waste of time, so I wouldn’t want it to happen.
But if it’s just one dude grinding his own path for himself? Well, if it isn’t prosecuted, it’s as much a failure of the system as every decision the shitty CEO made and wasn’t fired for. Two wrongs don’t make a right on that scale. Tbh, a thousand wrongs for a good reason don’t make a right, it just makes the problem a different scale, with different priorities.
The only difference between an insurrection and a revolution is success, in other words.
This wasn’t part of war. This wasn’t part of any revolution. This was a disgusting murder of an innocent person in cold blood. The killer needs to be caught and brought to justice.