Murder is justified for all sorts of reasons. IIRC, the US was founded on a base of murdering people over disputes on taxes and government. Treason was (or is?) punishable by death. I'm not sure why message board political bullshit is intrinsically less valid than "official" government or LE reasons.
Additionally, most people believe lethal force is justified in cases of defense. It's not a huge jump of logic to view these hits as defense.
"Additionally, most people believe lethal force is justified in cases of defense. It's not a huge jump of logic to view these hits as defense."
uh, wat?
The dude was a drug dealer protecting his criminal empire. If I'm robbing a bank and shoot a cop who is going to shoot me, is that also defense? So I should be charged for the original crime but not for killing the cop? Because that's pretty much what your argument sounds like to me.
I'm not saying he's right and not criminally liable for his actions. I'm just questioning why people are so confused as to why this is justifiable, in some peoples' opinions.
As to the specific example: If someone is trying to shoot you, no one would wonder why you shoot back. The bank robber would be held responsible because it's his action of robbing the bank that started the whole mess.
If you were sitting peacefully in your home, and someone broke down the door and started firing, you'd be quite justified in returning fire. (Even legally, depending on state, AFAIK.)
Folks sympathetic to DPR are more likely to view him in the second category. He was peacefully minding his own business running a marketplace when someone threatened him, his buyers, and his vendors. These folks are likely to view access to medicines as a moral action, and thus DPR and people involved with SR to be people doing the right thing, despite an oppressive government
> Additionally, most people believe lethal force is justified in cases of defense.
Defense against risk of death or grievous bodily harm. Which is not at all what's being discussed here, even if we agree to slant the scenario completely from the POV of DPR. But yet you still manage to find that murder might be acceptable here.
Remember that the pure libertarian utopia is supposed to make things better by permitting individual liberty against the oppression of the state. It's not supposed to make things worse (i.e. to easily permit murder-for-convenience), nor to keep things the same (as otherwise why change at all).
So lethal force isn't justified, say, if someone is coming to take your family into indefinite detention or slavery? So long the attacker isn't going to kill or seriously hurt them physically, then you've got to just try to talk them out of it?
Well of course you should try to protect your family, just know that the law will want you after. Morally right and legally right don't always align unfortunately in most cases where that's true.
Don't be obtuse by trying to act like that since I didn't specifically enumerate every case in which deadly force is applicable, that means I don't believe any other case allows for it.
And don't be idiotic by trying to equate "kidnapping of my family to be put into slavery" with "oh no this guy might give an accurate statement about myself to someone important!".
Only when you are directly attacked and use reasonable force ie some one pulls a knife or gun on you you are legitimately able to claim self defense if you end up killing them but not if they bump into accidentally on the tube.
Oh and if the state does it legally its not murder.