• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I know that sets a dangerous precedence. There should be no risk to that person that a trial jury could push punishment on him for that.

    How does that not also justify crazy christians from murdering doctors the perform life saving abortions (or these days, prescribe Tylenol)? You’re suggesting we remove the check on what justified violence is and put it solely in the mind of the person committing the violence. You don’t see a problem with that?

    • Jackusflackus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s easily discernible as a situational difference. Not even close to an apples to apples comparison

        • Jackusflackus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you cannot tell the difference between a father killing a pedo kidnapper for trying to abduct his child vs some performing an abortion you need serious help that is beyond my ability to describe to you over the internet.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh, I can see the difference in the two acts, and a jury can too. That’s where the check occurs. A jury would let the father off. A jury would convict the doctor murderer. However, you’re suggesting we don’t have that check and that not having it is okay. Thats the problem.

            If there’s no check, then anyone is free to carry out whatever killing they believe is justified and walk away scot-free.