3 ms·
It's the context - the sniper thinks they're going to a dangerous hostage situation with somebody who has already killed some people, they're trying to stop som
by fossuser 8y ago
It's the context - the sniper thinks they're going to a dangerous hostage situation with somebody who has already killed some people, they're trying to stop someone who is killing people and threatening to kill people.
The caller is intentionally putting an innocent person in a lethal situation basically because the caller is an ass and thinks they're not responsible for what happens afterwards.
I'm not arguing about whether or not excessive force was used or if the police response was wrong in addition to being tragic (very well could have been) since that requires knowing a lot more about the case.
I'm arguing that a lot less nuance is needed to say the caller is responsible. I'd argue they intended to cause harm for bad reasons - maybe not death, but that would have been a known possible outcome.
- jstanley 8y agoBut the shooter knew that death was a possible outcome as well. He isn't resolved of culpability just because he didn't bother to work out whether shooting was appropriate.
- fossuser 8y agoI'm not saying that he is (though he might be), but the situation is different and the intent given the context of what the person is trying to do is different. These things matter in law.
- jstanley 8y agoIf you're going to presume to take another person's life, you better be completely sure that you're doing the right thing.
- fossuser 8y agoIt's easy to take a 100% position when you don't have to actually make any decisions. In practice you can rarely be completely sure of anything. In complicated areas people do the best they can and we try and have systems in place to lead to the outcomes we want. That's why there's complexity around these things in law and the context is important.
- howlgram 8y agothe shooter has assumed the responsibility of wielding that power, so the context doesn't absolve them