QUESTION For Everyone About "KILLING A COP"
Someone, let's call him "John", confesses to you that he killed a cop recently. He explains that said cop was responsible for the death of his brother "Dave".
Dave was pulled over by the cop one night over a minor traffic violation. While talking to Dave about the traffic stop, the cop asked him if he was intoxicated. Dave denied. Then the cop asked him to step out of the vehicle. Dave complied. The cop asked him for permission to search his vehicle. Dave consented. While searching through the vehicle, the cop finds a small ziplock bag containing a gram of cannabis. The cop confronted Dave about it, to which he responded that he is a cannabis patient and that he can prove it with his medical card located in the center console. The cop responds, "Put your hands behind your back. You're under arrest." then proceeds to cuff Dave on the spot. Dave begins to resist while saying "For what? What'd I do?" The two begin to struggle while the cop repeatedly says "Stop resisting!" The struggle goes to the ground. Eventually, Dave gets loose and runs back into his vehicle. As he drives off, the cop pulls out his pistol and fires a few shots at Dave, but he gets away. The cop goes back to his patrol car and pursues Dave. He later finds the vehicle about 2 miles down the road, crashed into a tree with Dave slumped over the steering wheel. The cop, with his gun drawn, checks on Dave. He was unresponsive and later pronounced dead from bullet wounds to the back and neck area.
The entire incident was caught on the cop's body camera. All the evidence checks out, including the cannabis card. The toxicology results determine that Dave did not have any substance in him at the time and there were no alcoholic beverage found in his vehicle. His driver's licence and insurance was found in the glove compartment.
The cop did not get prison time but was fired from his job. A few weeks later, he was found dead in front of his house, next to his car. His killer has not been found. That killer is John, who sought revenge on the cop for the death of his brother Dave.
John reveals to you that he killed the cop, saying that he felt it was 100% justified. No one else knows about this except you and John.
QUESTION: Are you going to snitch on John? Or keep it a secret?
Jeez, no, why tell anyone? How is that anybody else’s business? The wrong has been redressed in an unfortunate way, but it’s over, and there’s no further moral action to be taken. The overt moral justice is served and the case is closed.
Now, as to the subtle moral question of revenge, it’s quite tricky. We can be assured that to take out the cop while in pursuit (on route to the ill-fated Dave) is wholly moral as a preventative defensive action.
However, just a mere instant later, with Dave unsavable, do we have an obligation to spare the aggressor (perhaps capturing him) with hope of rehabilitation - a second chance to become a moral human being?
I tend to prefer that outcome, yet I do not believe John has committed a moral crime by exacting revenge. However, it is no longer defense proper, which raises the question - is there a moral imperative to refrain from justifiable defensive action the moment all hope of defense is lost, and no further threat can be clearly discerned?
It seems to be a middle-ground (which may simply reflect the limits of my moral understanding) whereby the revenge is not morally punishable, yet may not be wholly moral either. To claim John’s action immoral is to say that it would be moral had it come sooner, but no longer is. This would seem to obviate the notion of redress altoghter.
If the action was just before, it must always be just. The violation of rights imposed a stain - a scarlet “A” for “aggressor” - that cannot be removed. In that moment, he incurred karmic debt. The consequence of that action lingers; it does not utterly disappear the moment the victim is killed.
If the aggressor can be punished a second after the act, he may be punished at any time. Moral consequence does not dissipate over time. One would have to assert that punishment is never justifiable in order to argue against the deferred revenge - even in a case where a person kills 10 people, then throws his hands up.
Is it only about eliminating an imminent threat, or is justice served by revenge? I’ve made a case for the latter, but also presented considerations about the former that must be considered in earnest. I, for one, believe I could benefit from more discussion about the subject of revenge.
Me too. I think the act of revenge from John was justifiable. But the idea of rehabilitation is interesting. I guess that would depend on the person exacting the revenge. I've heard of cases where family members forgave a killer for taking the life of a loved one. Not everyone can do this. Perhaps I could forgive a killer if he took the life of someone very close to me, but I might need time to meditate on it. If I were there at the immediate time he killed my relative, I absolutely would respond instinctively with deadly intentions.
The whole karmic thing is a good point to bring up. Remember the ending to 'The Purge: Anarchy'? Yeah.
No, I don’t know it - I never saw The Purge. I told you Class of 1999 was bugging me; I don’t know if I could handle such blatant, heavy-handed anti-freedom propaganda.
Spoilers..... Well, the whole movie is about the main character going to exact revenge on a guy responsible for the death of his son. Long story short, in the end, the protagonist gets a chance to kill the guy but doesn't and lets him go. The protagonist leaves then gets shot by a government agent but doesn't die. Government agent is about to finish him off but gets shot in the head from the guy he let live saving the protagonist.
Ah, I see. Second-chancers can be some of the most powerful forces for good. Their experience yields deep understanding, and their quest for redemption motivates strongly.
Rehabilitation is always preferable, but there’s no guarantee it will stick. So are just supposed to let people harm others until we can actually catch them in the act and shoot them through that small window of opportunity? It seems an odd plan. But forgiveness is Godly.
This is just slightly outside my moral understanding, but my intuition says revenge is not optimal. However, once it already happened, I don’t believe the person should be punished or even made to undergo rehabilitation themselves. I reserve the right to alter this opinion in the future because it’s not rooted in firm knowledge and I’m just getting the feeling it may be necessary Hahahah
Very good perspective. I agree.