This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Hear me out before you rage:
In theory? I believe that killings warrant investigation, prosecution and trial, no matter their intention, though the intention should factor into the result of the process. I want him to be prosecuted with the same intensity as any other killing would be, and if found, given a fair trial, convicted for whatever charge applies, as would be proper for a functioning judicial system. But then I’d want to see him pardoned as political expression of his popular support (and the fact that his victim was part of a deeply inhuman complex of exploitation).
In practice? I hope they never find him. Appropriate intensity of investigation? Orderly arrest? Fair treatment as prisoner? Fair trial? Fair charges? Fair conviction? Fat chance. Pardoned? Not even a chance.
I want him to go without punishment more than I want to hope for a fair process, and I couldn’t believe in the latter in any case.
Dude would get merked before he gets to speak in front of any kind of microphone. There is no way in my mind he makes it to a jury trial alive.