• nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      If someone hands a loaded gun to someone who they believe intends to commit murder, do you believe that they are not a part of the murder committed?

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Who is part of what murder? Neither of the people in your scenario has killed anyone yet.

        • teuast@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 months ago

          OK, you need to be walked through it every step of the way, then.

          1. Akhil gives a gun to Omar.

          2. Akhil knows Omar hates, to pick a threatened minority at random, gay people, and wants to kill them.

          3. Omar shoots up, let’s say, a gay nightclub. In, to pick a city totally at random, Orlando, Florida. And just for funsies, let’s call it The Pulse. I’m sure this totally imaginary scenario bears no resemblance to any actual event, and no gay nightclub called The Pulse in Orlando, Florida has ever been shot up by a virulent homophobe named Omar Mateen. Pure imagination.

          4. The judicial system would view Akhil as an accessory to murder in that instance.

          Let me further introduce you to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Boy, aren’t you learning a lot tonight! I’m happy for you.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes I agree with all of that. Person A would be an accessory to murder.

            Being an accessory to murder is a different thing than being a murderer. That’s why they have different labels. I think you view them as the same? Or are suggesting they are?

            • pulsereaction@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              In the example in question maybe, maybe not. If Omar wasn’t handed the gun from person A, he could have gotten the gun in some other way.

              However, in an election, no one gets elected without votes, so yes I do consider everyone who votes for a bigot to be responsible for what that bigot did.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                See I would hold the bigot responsible. Its doesn’t seem right or practical to put millions of people on trial for one person’s act.