I'm not disagreeing with the facts. The only significant difference between DD's and JJ's actions was, JJ was successful and DD was not. Remorse after the fact is irrelevant at the moment of the (attempted) act, and the factual outcome very often has a great effect on one's expression of remorse. As I recall, JJ was at least equally remorseful at taking a life, as DD was at a mere failed attempt. In most systems of law, a lawful or unlawful attempt is equally judged as a success. It is morally, socially, and lawfully acceptable within most all systems of beliefs and law, to stop the murderous actions of a tyrant by any reasonable means necessary, up to and including homicide of the tyrant. I agree with that, and so did Gandhi. In every system of law exists criminal exceptions for excusable/justifiable homicide. Had DD been successful, I fully believe he would have been morally and legally justified, considering the totality of circumstances (script notwithstanding). This speaks nothing of his personal moral judgment upon himself. His priest expressed much the same, in both respects.
During the scene with DD, Castle and Grotto, DD did make his "everyone is redeemable" speech. However, the subject of redemption (Grotto) was not, at the time, committing any act upon another. Castle, on the other hand, was enacting what he believed to be "an eye for an eye", for Grotto's mere association with those responsible for his family's death. Had DD been present during Grotto's heinous act (killing of an elderly woman to conceal his identity), DD's expression of that belief may have been very different, at that time.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
reply
share