The whole situation was unfortunate from the get-go and opens up a moral quandary. Is it right to shoot someone in self defense as he did with Rosenbaum? In my opinion, yes it is.
Now with the others it's a bit of a moral gray area, because I can't read any of their minds. But let's be charitable and assume that they actually believed that the shooting (which they most likely didn't see) was unjustified and that he was some mass-murdering lunatic. Does it make it their duty to try to violently subdue him, even if they don't know why he fired in the first place?
He did go on to kill / gravely wound two people who attacked him later, which is justified, but think of the implications of that.
Say there's a mass-shooter and a "good guy with a gun" steps in to stop him. Does that "good guy" need to know why the mass shooter is shooting in the first place before taking action? A lot of these situations are confusing and rely on split second knee-jerk decisions which can result in tragedy. It makes it hard to really legislate around it because the decision of a person to pull a trigger can be a very subjective matter of opinion which can almost always be justified somehow. Ignorance is no legal defense in our system, but at the same time morally justifies an awful lot because how can you truly blame someone for believing what they are told if that's the only thing they know (ie that the guy shooting and running away is a murderer)?
I'm trying to be as charitable as I can to both sides, but as it was, Kyle was in the right to defend himself and the media characterization of him as a racist psycho etc was completely insane and made me all the more glad he got off. As to why he cried, and likely continues to be haunted by the episode, I am sure because he does feel a certain amount of guilt because the people he killed also believed that they were doing the right thing, even if they turned out to be gravely mistaken.
reply
share