I’m trying to figure out how someone in that situation could assess the percentage of risk? I’m not even sure how we can assess it with pinpoint accuracy after examining the facts from the comfort of our own living rooms.
Even if there was a resource officer somewhere on campus, why would that matter? The teacher would certainly know but would Giamanco?
Using force, including deadly force, to stop the attack was the morally correct choice. And you’re correct, it doesn’t feel right because we’ve got a conflict of values that needs to be resolved. We all value life, right? In a general sense, we value human life. Because we value life, we’re comfortable, in the abstract at least, of recognizing people have a right to defend their life. So when a person kills another in self-defense it’s difficult for some people to resolve that conflict. (Not for everyone though. Some people are fine saying killing is morally wrong no matter what.)
I find that totally irrelevant to this situation. He was licensed to carry a firearm because, in his particular jurisdiction, he was considered qualified to do so.
Again, the age of the mass murderer is also irrelevant. He was obviously old enough and strong enough to murder children until he ran out of ammunition. He may have been legally a minor, but he was nowhere near being a “child”.
Our civilian hero witnessed him murdering children. The situation was crystal clear, the perps horrendous crime being far beyond even a shadow of a doubt. What “due process” are we talking about?
No, it’s not. A demon was stopped from wiping out dozens of children and educators. There was no time to read him his Miranda Rights. It was a RIGHT NOW situation.
He wasn’t a demon. He was a human. He wasn’t a great human — murdering children isn’t exactly good behaviour. I’m okay with his being killed to stop the carnage, but what I can’t get over is the people forgetting that one human community member killed another, and the dead one was a minor.
I can’t agree that this was morally correct. I can agree that it was necessary, but I don’t understand why people need to see it as a good thing.
As for the civilian aspect, I think I just don’t like the fact that my neighbours are allowed to kill in certain circumstances. I’ve see how they vote and I don’t trust their judgement. There are still people out there who think certain categories of minority are a social harm, and I fear the slippery slope. There’s no evidence that anything is happening in the vast excluded middle here, though, so not really a rational fear.
It’s improper to declare that someone did not choose a morally correct path, when every other available path results in more human suffering.
When a person is faced with a variety of options and chooses the one that maximizes the welfare of people in their community, even though it places themselves at risk, that IS the moral choice.
Yup. OVERALL, this is a terrible terrible situation. It is terrible that a 16-year-old lost his life. That being said, his loss of life is preferable to the loss of dozens of others. Giamanco could not have known he was only 16; all he knew is that he had a gun and had already shot (and possibly killed) several people. It was reasonable for him to assume the shooter still had amunition (he did). The teacher was brave for at least distracting and delaying him. If the shooter was disarmed, then Giamanco shouldn’t have shot him. My understanding is that the shooter and the teacher wer wrestling with the gun. I think Giamanco’s actions were proper (at least with the information we have currently).
Giamanco’s actions were proper. Unfortunate, but proper. We should appreciate his heroism in a solemn way. I’m sure he’s second-guessing himself, especially after learning the shooter was only 16 and a former student in that special needs room.
That falls under the concept of “preclusion” in that other methods have failed or would not be effective
If a fully armed police officer was on the scene of the active shooter it would not be reasonable for them to draw a Taser or OC spray when faced with a lethal threat.
I did not leave that out. I referred to it directly. It’s central to the whole issue. I’m not arguing that he should have been given a pat on the head and a pony, but that his death is tragic and should be sobering, and his killer should be praised for bravery and his willingness to do what had to be done WITHOUT dehumanizing the murder victim or celebrating his death.
It’s great that the least bad option was taken so quickly and decisively, but it’s still not good. Good was not on the table once the murderer started shooting.
We consider it a good thing because it stopped a great evil. In WW2, millions of German soldiers died. We bombed their cities to such an extent that fire storms incinerated what wasn’t actually destroyed by the bombs themselves. In the Pacific Theater, we incinerated two cities with nuclear weapons. As totally horrible as all that was, it stopped a much greater evil. We might say that, RELATIVELY speaking, all of that was “good”. Obviously, “GOOD” would have been none of that stuff happening.
I don’t think anyone has forgotten that. It just isn’t relevant as to the actions of both the teacher and Gianmanco.
If it was necessary then it was moral. It was good in the sense that is likely saved the lives of children and perhaps the teacher who wrestled with the shooter. I’ll concede we can never know with absolute certainty whether the gunman could have been subdued in a nonlethal manner.
You don’t like the situation. Great. Can you tell me what the morally correct course of action is for anyone to take when an active shooting is murdering children?
Not all SROs carry firearms, and even more do not carry their firearm at all times while in the school.
But really, I’m just pointing out that the teacher and the father were on their own. and with no less-lethal options. They had to stop the shooter by themselves in that moment or more people, probably kids, would likely be killed.
Sometimes there is no absolutely correct course of action. This is when you you still feel like shit that it had to happen, and carry that heavy memory.
What happened was not right, it was just less wrong.
The question is, what if what YOU are is… a sucker?
More to the point, I could easily accept that someone is human no matter what; but that wouldn’t obviate that in some cases treating them as human would mean killing them, rather than leaving them in the condition they’ve fallen to.
There is no morally correct action to be taken. I disagree that a necessary action is a morally correct action. I think sometimes life just sucks, and you do the best you can. That’s why Giamanco’s actions are so impressive: I could not have done what he did, but if I were on the scene, the situation might have been much worse. Proclaiming it to be “moral,” though, seems to me a way of sidestepping the harsh reality that the best option was still bad. Better than the worse options (e.g. doing nothing), for sure, but sometimes immoral actions are required.
Jasmine mentioned wars. Wars are objectively horrific, and loads of innocent people are harmed. I’m against them. Sometimes, however, there are no better options. But I’m never going to say that a war is a moral good.
That’s a reasonable place to go with it. As long as it’s taken seriously, that whoever takes that life is aware of how terrible a thing it is to take a human life.
It’s when people start calling a teenager a demon, a monster, a rabid animal that I get a little salty about it.
No. Those are humans who do such things. Denying that such things are done by humans only increases the likelihood of humans doing them; because we can’t train humans not to without admitting that humans do.
Quoted for truth. That’s exactly it.
Some people resolve the problem that way, by saying that it’s always morally wrong. Other people try to resolve it by saying that it’s morally right because the killing, if necessary, must be a good thing; or even by claiming that the human it was necessary to kill wasn’t actually human.
Some of us say that there are circumstances under which it’s morally right to do a wrong thing. I think this (given the information I have) was one of those circumstances.