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.

  • sircac
    2•16 days ago

    CEOs will not become more human due to this potential threat, they will just keep a lower and more discrete profile (which have started to happen already) while probably increasing security measures up to their own convenience.

    I would love that such kind of CEOs get prosecuted for good ethical reasons, but the legal system seems to not support such cases, so that’s what should be changed on the first place.

    Also, because I trust in the strength of a civilised society and its monopoly of the violence, I want that anybody that decide to kill someone unilaterally face the consequences of such action, with consideration to all the circumstances as usual, so I want him also prosecuted: if I ever take justice into my own hands I will do it accepting all the consequences.

    I don’t understand the reduction to a simple false dichotomy about which side between the shooter or the CEO must be taken, sounds like the deliberate simply polarisation from ill public forums nowadays.