I am not suggesting we excuse the actions of this man who chose to point a gun at the innocent at all. But I am suggesting it is very unhealthy to just view this as "good guy kills bad guy" without a thought to what influenced this mans decision's to commit this act of violence. I think it right that we are all relieved at the outcome that no innocent life was taken but I personally think it wrong that we should feel joy and take pleasure in this story.
I personally believe that the only people who should see things in the terms of "good guy vs bad guy" are the police. They need to think straight down the line to be effective in their role. Either you are a good guy abiding the law or a bad guy breaking it. I wouldn't want the law having a crisis of conscience I just want them to protect society from law breakers!
However, I think it important for us to ask where he came from. I think we as individuals need to consider the impact of parenting, family dynamics, child abuse, mental illness, media representation of classes, the distribution of wealth, education, welfare, health care, criminal justice every time something like this happens. Not to mitigate a criminals actions but rather to ask the right questions in an attempt to find solutions and to prevent the further alienation of whole sections of our society. Unless we as individuals want the answers to these questions, the media and our governments aren't going to attempt to answer them for us.
I guess I see it as two different things.
On the one hand, I'm perfectly comfortable with seeing this as a good vs. evil situation, and I am very happy that good won.
At the same time, I'm more than willing to discuss what could have motivated the man to do evil behavior. I think it's important that we understand what factors lead to violence and what we can do to mitigate them. However, I don't think this discussion should have any bearing on the "good vs. evil" perspective.
Fine, the guy had problems. Let's look at what they were and how we can address them in others before their problems lead them to the same actions. But the guy still did an evil thing, and he paid the ultimate price. Happy ending.
I don't really think you and I are disagreeing. We both think the story ended better than it could have. We both think it's important to understand why the "bad guy" chose this course of action. The only distinction I'm making is that I think it's important not to let the second consideration, his motivation, cloud our perception of the first, his actions.
Too many people want to lose themselves in the mitigating factors because they are afraid to admit to themselves that bad people do bad things. They end up creating a sick moral equivalency between the bad guy and the good guy because after all, "the bad guy was touched by his uncle once as a child." That's sad. It's even horrific. It doesn't excuse his actions, and it certainly doesn't make the hero the villian of the tale
Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I think we agree. I just think it's an important distinction to make.
I also disagree with your statement that, 'the only people who should see things in the terms of "
good guy vs bad guy" are the police." Sorry. There's a lot of bad cops out there. I'm not saying most, or casting aspersions on law enforcement in general, but giving them the sole responsibility of determing good and evil is a mistake.
As an anarchist, I have my own opinions of law and law enforcement, but all that aside, I think it is every person's responsibility to make firm judgements about right and wrong. Abdicating that authority to the government gives them the power to call truth a lie and reality fiction. It is the responsibility of all free people, first and foremost, to make decisions about right and wrong, good and evil, and not to surrender that responsibility to those in power at the moment. That's just believing that might makes right.
Falling into that trap leaves you at the mercy of the morals of whoever has a gun pointed at you at the time.
-Rob
