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.
Even after hearing how much of a total POS shit the CEO is, yes. That’s just a basic part of the rule of law. You murder someone, you get prosecuted. It’s a really dangerous path for a society when it’s open season to outright murder people when they’re unpopular.
He didn’t get murdered for being unpopular.
No, but people are suggesting giving his murderer a free pass because they don’t like him aka he is unpopular. There’s a good reason that he’s unpopular, just like there’s a good reason that many widely detested people are unpopular. It doesn’t mean we start being a lawless nation.
I can’t remember anyone justifying out of personal dislike or popularity. Their justification is that this person’s actions are mass social murder, suggesting that such anti-social people deserve to be killed if the legal system refuses to punish and deter them. The fact that people generally hate a mass killer is incidental, it’s not the reason they deserve a punishment.
There are good arguments against vigilantism in general, and while I don’t fully agree in this specific case, I respect them as valid reasons. But to say this assassin is being given a free pass simply because people don’t like the victim is absurd.