I think we're nitpicking here. I think that the probability of someone not being impartial given their son was on a kill list is greater than someone who's son

I think we're nitpicking here. I think that the probability of someone not being impartial given their son was on a kill list is greater than someone who's son wasn't...etc. Anyway, I 100% agree that "there is a burden of proof on me to explain why, by killing that someone my action is righteous, legal and moral"