Ends justifying the means
I know of a case of a woman- Amber Cummings- who was abused by her husband. Over time, he got into kiddie porn, Nazi memoribilia, and ultra-fascist websites.
She finally reached her breaking point and was contemplating suicide, weapon in hand. But then wondered who would protect her daughter. So she sent her kid next door to the neighbors, and after that, shot her husband and called the cops, confessing.
The police, during the sweep, found not only the kiddie porn and Nazi stuff, but a nearly completed dirty bomb (radiological) and a travel itinerary for his impending trip to Washington for Obama's initial presidential inauguration.
She was tried, convicted of murder, and given an 8 year suspended sentence.
She finally reached her breaking point and was contemplating suicide, weapon in hand. But then wondered who would protect her daughter. So she sent her kid next door to the neighbors, and after that, shot her husband and called the cops, confessing.
The police, during the sweep, found not only the kiddie porn and Nazi stuff, but a nearly completed dirty bomb (radiological) and a travel itinerary for his impending trip to Washington for Obama's initial presidential inauguration.
She was tried, convicted of murder, and given an 8 year suspended sentence.
Last edited:
Hmm. Good question. I reckon there could be some question on whether or not a given means was truly the best solution.
I'm at least convinced from my old "wipe out the drow" thread that there's some good logic on why genocide isn't a good tactic (separate from moral wrongness).
So I'm inclined to suspect that for any terrible means, a case can be made that it may also be a bad solution (bad as in not as effective as other solutions to solve the proposed goal).
As I can't think of anything, I'm pondering if there were as many causes driven by allegedly "good" motivations to then be saddled with a terrible means to solve it?
The Crusades seemed to be championed by folks clamoring for "good", though it's not clear that the actual people involved were driven by that (or that they were in effect fighting a true evil).
I would guess that some people's solutions to plague might have been terrible, effective and done with intent for the good of the people. Seems like those time periods might render an example.
If her husband was into kiddie porn, then she had legal ammunition to just call the cops, and she would have achieved the same outcome without committing murder herself.
Though I'm a fan of civilians shooting bad guys early and often, I still generally feel that the situation needs to be one where the cops would be unable to help before resorting to shooting bad guys. At least she basically got off. I applaud the part of the justice system recognizing her situation.
One could argue also that allowing civilians and soldiers to die in order to keep the Nazis from realizing we had broken their codes until it was too late is another example.
Oh, I agree that calling the cops may have yielded similar results. I am foggy, however, on the details of the case in the sense of timing. As in, I don't know if the police would have arrived in time to prevent her husband's bombing plan.
good one, though I was trying to think of pre-WW2 stuff like BG asked. The Nazis are chock full of ends justifying the means possibilities.
We got lots of rockety/medical knowledge from the Nazis, who did bad things to get that knowledge.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
And that's assuming she had knowledge of the kiddie porn in the first place.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
So... note pre-WWII, but how about the medical knowledge we got due to the nazi torture experiments on Jews?
Last edited:
She did- it's what diverted her from suicide: she felt that if she killed herself, nobody would be protecting her daughter from her own daddy when he finally decided to emulate IRL what he was viewing online.
Similar Threads
