What is and what ought to be

Just because instances of the Law have been and continue to be unjust is no reason to stop arguing for what the law ought to be.

Here its clear that people were arguing hypotheticals; "if I had a child," "if this happened to someone I cared about."... Therefore its only consistent to argue about how one ought to proceed, rather than cite the worst case scenarios. And of course the worst case scenarios have already been cited for our benefit; unjustly accused innocent person dead at the hands of a vigilante.

Its easy for Stahntii's caveats to be based on "certainty." But we know that eyewitnesses and those who are emotionally involved are also more likely to feel certain when they're absolutely false; and still you have a dead or crippled innocent whose injury can never be undone.

I've raised kids, I've sat on a jury numerous times ( I must have the word "juror" tattooed on my forehead by now.) And I would trust more to facts which can be proven to strangers, than to venting my rage in a heated moment which can never be revoked. We are better than brutes; at least some of us are.

Then there's the issue of what upset the child. Oftentimes we don't know for sure until after the child is no longer crying. Heck, its true with adults, that what we say between sobs is not the same thing we say when we're calm and have time to collect our thoughts.

All we know for sure if we act like reflexive animals is that our already upset child now has to live with the knowledge that their venting "caused" the death or maiming of someone they had voluntarily spent time with just a few moments before.

As anyone with two or more children can attest, if parents meted out violence based on the sobs and feelings of a child in the moment, then none of us would have siblings.

Dante