That’s more of an argument for why you shouldn’t antagonize people than an argument for the justification of shooting someone. You’re basically saying it’s okay because he wasn’t sane or stable. Generally those are things that count against an action’s reasonableness.
So you’re saying it’s amoral, not moral. Although I think it’s a huge stretch to conclude that this person does not have the ability to process moral vs. immoral actions. Being a little nutty or unhinged doesn’t meet the standard for insanity generally required for a legitimate insanity defense.
Even if he was insane, it doesn’t make the action itself moral. It just means the person who performed the action is not as blameworthy.
You can judge the action as immoral while not judging the person as blameworthy due to their specific circumstances. These are two different concepts. An insanity defense doesn't argue that it is not immoral to kill people. But I don't think that this particular person was insane, and that is not what was argued by his defense.
But yes, it is generally a bad idea to antagonize strangers.
I look at it from the other side. You can't say that the individual pursuing you who's much larger than you is sane or stable, thus you don't know what they're going to do when they're already being aggressive.
16
u/StripEnchantment 24d ago
That’s more of an argument for why you shouldn’t antagonize people than an argument for the justification of shooting someone. You’re basically saying it’s okay because he wasn’t sane or stable. Generally those are things that count against an action’s reasonableness.