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?
People condemned to the death penalty are generally not existential threats to humanity. It’s safe to simply keep them where they can do no harm.
Financially obese parasites, on the other hand, are existential threats to humanity, so, while the death penalty is morally abhorrent, they must be put down to ensure the survival of civilization and the human race as a whole.
Forced to choose between two bad options (murder or extinction), we can only choose the less abhorrent one.
Of course, though, this obligation doesn’t justify or absolve the crime, it just makes it necessary, an existential imperative. Whoever commits it should still face justice.
(In Luigi’s case specifically, he shouldn’t be absolved because his alleged victim was objectively a cancer on society and it’s death made the world slightly less worst, but because there’s a reasonable doubt that the evidence against him might have been fabricated.)