People want to be superheroes. Do you think this guy is going to be the only one who decides to take the law into their own hands? Do you think everyone who does is going to get the person they intend to get and never make a mistake?
Something tells me you wouldn’t be so willing to have someone misidentify and then attack or kill you or someone you care about. But it’s okay when it’s an innocent stranger, right?
That does not address a single thing I said. Don’t change the subject. I was talking about vigilantism, not insurance claims.
Your bloodlust for killing the innocent when it is “necessary” is noted.
How many innocent people it is acceptable to kill per CEO? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What’s the maximum number here you’ll accept? How about if someone throws a bomb on top of a CEO in the middle of a city and it kills everyone around him? Acceptable? What if the CEO is with their baby at the time and the baby gets shot too? Fine to shoot a baby as long as the CEO dies?
I want to know where your line is, but I have a feeling you’ll try to change the subject again rather than respond.
You are missing the point of what the people want.
They don’t want a super hero, he is just useful here.
People want for ruling class to listen and adjsit course. They are not getting it.
This got their attention and people are driving the point home. If they keep up their policies, when they get gunned down, we didn’t see nothing.
This the country the built for us. They love social Darwinism so why shouldn’t they face natural selection.
People want to be superheroes. Do you think this guy is going to be the only one who decides to take the law into their own hands? Do you think everyone who does is going to get the person they intend to get and never make a mistake?
As our dearest elites like to do, I am willing to face these risks.
That’s the risk of living in a degerate society where you are unable to get redress from the government or ruling class.
It is a class war which is inherently an asymmetric engagement. I am part of the working class so I can’t in good faith condemn this man.
And there it is- it’s okay with you if innocent people die as long as guilty people also die.
That really doesn’t make you much better than the CEOs who also don’t care if innocent people die.
Innocent people die for no reason under current arrangement everyday.
Best we get is some fake Pearl clutch about how unfortunate it is along with thoughts and prayers bullshit.
But you want people reading this exchange to worry about proverbial innocent person who might die if keep praising the shooter for a job well done?
Again, you clearly don’t understand what this is about or refuse to for whatever reason.
Americans got unified here… Do you wonder what would make normal people feel their way?
“They kill innocent people, so it’s okay if we kill innocent people” is not the moral argument you think it is.
Yes. Yes I do. Because I pay attention to what happens when vigilantes find the wrong person.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna11125863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin
https://6abc.com/archive/6851290/
https://calexicochronicle.com/2024/03/04/was-unhoused-calexico-man-victim-of-misplaced-vigilante-justice/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/innocent-man-attacked-by-vigilantes-in-berks-county/1956640/
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-man-exposed-paedophile-vigilante-28827889?int_source=nba#ltu4r69lxj0y7dl07mn
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2928387/vigilante-family-including-teen-19-shoots-neighbor-dead/
https://www.news9.com/story/5e3650792f69d76f62067d32/victim-of-mistaken-identity-vigilante-attack-in-tulsa-still-shaken-up
Something tells me you wouldn’t be so willing to have someone misidentify and then attack or kill you or someone you care about. But it’s okay when it’s an innocent stranger, right?
I wouldn’t be willing to have my health insurance claims denied but here we are
You are entitled to your opinion and each American make up their own minds
That does not address a single thing I said. Don’t change the subject. I was talking about vigilantism, not insurance claims.
Your bloodlust for killing the innocent when it is “necessary” is noted.
How many innocent people it is acceptable to kill per CEO? 1? 10? 100? 1000? What’s the maximum number here you’ll accept? How about if someone throws a bomb on top of a CEO in the middle of a city and it kills everyone around him? Acceptable? What if the CEO is with their baby at the time and the baby gets shot too? Fine to shoot a baby as long as the CEO dies?
I want to know where your line is, but I have a feeling you’ll try to change the subject again rather than respond.
We’ve reached an impasse, readers can make up their own minds on this topic.