So killing is not okay except when its internet-approved vigilantism?
Example: “Polititian commutes death sentences” Lemmy be like “good”, but then when “Politician condemns assassination” Lemmy have a problem with condeming political violence?
(Like Gavin Newsom commutes all death row immates in California vs when Democratic polititians condemned Luigi Mangione)
Or are these different groups of Lemmings?
I don’t see any inherent contention between the two examples you’ve given. Someone that is justice minded is looking for two things: 1) a system that punishes those who commit wrongs, and 2) a system that only punishes those that meet the criminal criteria.
It is a colorable argument that health insurance executives ought to have culpability for their decisions, yet the legal system allows them to skate. It is also a colorable argument that some/many/most prisoners sentenced to death in California were wrongfully convicted, or their trial/punishment was swayed by improper bias (ie racism), and thus such an imperfect system ought to not result in irreversible error (ie execution of someone who didn’t meet the criteria).
Please do not reduce nuance into nullity. There are vanishingly few people that will assert that killing (even self defense) should always be prohibited; this is a strawman. And “internet vigilantism” is more than just words on a screen, but actions undertaken that happen to be online. Take, for example, the good work of DDoSecrets, which is unquestionably a form of vigilantism, yet daylight is the best antiseptic for corruption. The world is not black and white; rather, it is complicated.