That doesn’t excuse violence however.
That alone, in isolation, may not excuse violence. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Their messages on the bullets are an explicit reference to systematic antisocial techniques used by these companies to unjustly deny coverage. Which has knowingly resulted in pushing families into poverty and deaths on a scale of millions, far more harm than any act of direct physical violence has.
That kind of mass slaughter is certainly excusing of defense, physical or otherwise, and the legal system is clearly not a viable option looking at history. Even just looking at the exaggerated police response this assassination had compared to most other killings in the city is a hint that the legal system is rigged in the favour of the owning class of society. Violence becomes the only effective act of resistance remaining to protest this systematic mass killing which doesn’t involve slow and lengthy mass collective organisation requiring the co-ordination of many thousands. And, quite frankly, a handgun execution is far more humane than the kinds of slow deaths many people have suffered from at the hands of this company, so I don’t understand why this killing should be considered exceptional or disproportionate simply because it’s direct physical violence, as opposed to legalised denial of health service.
Seagoon_@aussie.zone 1 month ago
it exactly excuses violence, juries take in to account state of mind when judging and judges take into account suffering when sentencing, it’s called mercy
in an ideal world these insurance companies would be prosecuted by the states for conspiracy to defraud their customers, organised crime/rico and for harassment , at minimum
that hasn’t been happening even tho the crimes by the insurance have been well known for decades
Hirom@beehaw.org 1 month ago
We’ll see what how the trial goals. A judge would probably consider the risk of encouraging vigilante justice, ie letting individuals bypass the justice system to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
I’d be very surprised if a court excuse a vigilante killer because he/her suffer distress or harm. That would be a dangerous precedent, many people would see that as a right to kill for all kind of reasons.
It seems more plausible that such factor lead to that person to get a lighter sentence, rather than to receive complete pardon/mercy.