• teuast@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK, you need to be walked through it every step of the way, then.

    1. Akhil gives a gun to Omar.

    2. Akhil knows Omar hates, to pick a threatened minority at random, gay people, and wants to kill them.

    3. Omar shoots up, let’s say, a gay nightclub. In, to pick a city totally at random, Orlando, Florida. And just for funsies, let’s call it The Pulse. I’m sure this totally imaginary scenario bears no resemblance to any actual event, and no gay nightclub called The Pulse in Orlando, Florida has ever been shot up by a virulent homophobe named Omar Mateen. Pure imagination.

    4. The judicial system would view Akhil as an accessory to murder in that instance.

    Let me further introduce you to the concept of stochastic terrorism. Boy, aren’t you learning a lot tonight! I’m happy for you.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes I agree with all of that. Person A would be an accessory to murder.

      Being an accessory to murder is a different thing than being a murderer. That’s why they have different labels. I think you view them as the same? Or are suggesting they are?

      • pulsereaction@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the example in question maybe, maybe not. If Omar wasn’t handed the gun from person A, he could have gotten the gun in some other way.

        However, in an election, no one gets elected without votes, so yes I do consider everyone who votes for a bigot to be responsible for what that bigot did.