[abnry]

There's martial law and there is civil law. Martial law applies to enemies and in wartime. In this case, killing enemies like Bin Laden is acceptable.

However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.

People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.

[that_guy_iain]

I‘m talking about justice and what is legal and what is just are two different things.

Is it just a child rapist, who there is video evidence commuting the crime, gets to walk free because they can’t find the victim to testify in court? And yes, that is the law in some countries. The uk had to wait for someone to come back to the uk because they could convict without the victims but the country he committed the crime couldn’t.

And it’s only not obvious that he‘s responsible for a lot of pain and suffering when you ignore the facts. The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.

[abnry]

> The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.

There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.

Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.

If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?