• unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    To dumb it down: if someone kills someone and someone else sees it and doesn’t intervene, the person who saw it and didn’t intervene may not be the best person (options of intervening aside), but they’re still a far better person the the person who actually committed the murder.

    • SmokinStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      4 months ago

      What if the person who does nothing is a cop whos literal job it was to stop it? Its one thing to try and fail. It’s another to sit on your ass and watch while planning on how you can use the murder to negotiate a raise.

    • Salem [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 months ago

      The passive person is considered an accomplice to murder, and usually they are charged with the same penalties of that murder in that manner.

      You’re being facetious and deceitful.

      The Democrats and Biden enabled and empowered Israel’s genocide, breaking several laws of financing and sponsoring such states’ actions; the Center for Constitutuional Rights filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration which the court acknowledged that a genocide was ongoing - that the Biden administration’s breaking of the law was evident - but decided to rule against the CCR based on political doctrine (i.e, the court refused to intervene because it was foreign policy matter to be settled by the executive/legislative, despite the illegality of the executive action.)

      The rule of law does not exist. The state is a means of mediating class conflict and socioeconomic changes. The state therefore selectively applies the law, indicating that it is power and political will that determines state policy rather than legalisms and procedure.

      To dumb it down: you’re not going back to brunch.