He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here ar

He felt entitled to retribution. The fact that he was "dicked" around by medical individuals over a more serious matter does not nullify the comparison, here are the details of the two scenarios: In both scenarios the victim's were not directly to blame. In both scenarios a larger group of people "dicked" around the aggressor. And in both scenarios (one hypothetical) the violent actions are being downplayed, or justified because of some sort of indirect harm towards the aggressor. This backlash just shows how easy it is for people to conflate the issues involved. It is in essence justifying violence against innocent individuals, and frankly, it's sickening. "Of course it doesn't justify murder, but it is quit different than, for example, a premeditated murder over money." Murder is murder, I don't see the distinction here. You can't go ahead and say murder isn't so bad if the aggressor was "having a bad hair day", or any other trivial issue. If you want to say that this individual was justified in his act of killing because he was in danger and was forced to do so, or was defending himself, then fine that's a different issue.