This "murderer" as you call him is a beacon of justice and should be supported. He's killing corrupt cop's and their associates while exposing the inept and corrupt LAPD. Anyone who has any common sense should support him; he's doing everyone a favour by dealing with corrupt cop's.QuebecNationale
Since when is it okay to simply murder suspected criminals, and alleged associates of those criminals, and their children?
- What qualifies him to be the judge, jury and executioner here?
- Whose 'justice' are we talking about here, when it's only one man, acting alone, taking very questionable actions against people to whom he holds a personal grudge?
- Even if these cops are proven to be corrupt, do they all deserve death? Do those cops who stood by and avoided conflict by saying nothing also deserve death (as he wrote in his manifesto), even though they may have done so for good reasons, such as keeping their jobs to continue feeding their kids?
Look, I see what you're getting at, but vigilante-ism is not the answer. It's too simplistic, it doesn't take into account all the angles.
It's a Hollywood solution to a real-world problem.
It's also funny how you attatch a negative connotation with the word "murderer". Look at the military or the Police Force since both have their fair share of murderers. Tell me, do you think the families of kids killed in Pakistan are justified if they called the US soldier who killed their kids a murderer? Lawful killing and unlawful killing are the same thing essentially; people are killed at the expense of either the country/Government or an honest cop who wants to fight corruption. In this case, the ex cop is carrying out justice since the Government won't. It's really quite comical that you condemn him for fighting injustice.QuebecNationale
Well...technically speaking, 'kill' and 'murder' aren't synonyms, and muder usually tends to have much darker connotations than mere killing.
'Killing' is just an action - anything that ends somebody's life can be said to have killed them. 'Murder' is more complex, and has a lot of legal and social dimensions to it, which tend to be negative in nature.
On the legal side, murder is an unlawful act of killing, typically requiring some kind of intention to kill or a reckless disregard for life. Concepts like 'unlawfulness', 'recklessness', or the planning required for an intended kill tend to have negative connotations.
On the social side of things, I would imagine that society would consider 'murder' to include any act of killing that they don't agree with - again with the negative connotations. That one is...trickier to deal with, because society is a bundle of differing opinions on everything.
Anyway, the soldier/rogue cop distinction seems pretty clear on the legal side of things.
Soldiers who follow their rules of engagement are lawfully authorised to kill enemy combatants; they only commit murder if they intentionally/recklessly break the rules (ie. deliberately gunning down civilians). So...yes, in my view, a soldier who kills Pakistani children would be a murderer (or at the very least he might be committing manslaughter).
In contrast, this man simply appears to be a murderer, without much room for error. He had no authority to do when he is doing, besides his own perceived moral authority (which is already questionable at best), and so by definition his killings are unlawful.
Perhaps society's views on murder might see them to be the same or different, although that's always going to be conflicted and nobody will ever agree on it. The only clear thing to me is that he is, legally speaking, a murderer, and I personally don't agree with his course of action.
Log in to comment