This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Not quite. The reason we reject vigilantism is not that it is always unjust, but only usually. In this case, however, the outcome was in line with any reasonable objective standard of justice, as far as I can tell.