So he should be punished for killing a man “on the street”, but the man he (allegedly) killed, the one who ordered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths all for the sake of making more money that he doesn’t need; you think that’s fine and acceptable and we should all just let it keep happening because it didn’t occur “on the street”?
What is sick is your suggestion that giving a mass murderer his comeuppance is morally wrong. Your framing of this as anything but what it actually very obviously is is pathetic and paper-thin.
So he should be punished for killing a man “on the street”, but the man he (allegedly) killed, the one who ordered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths all for the sake of making more money that he doesn’t need; you think that’s fine and acceptable and we should all just let it keep happening because it didn’t occur “on the street”?
What is sick is your suggestion that giving a mass murderer his comeuppance is morally wrong. Your framing of this as anything but what it actually very obviously is is pathetic and paper-thin.