Maybe it is. But if he needs to create false evidence as a reason for this, it probably isn't. If the group was a genuine threat there would be plenty of evidence to suggest it without needing to create some by using a trap. Resorting to under-hand methods would be unnecessary if the threat was real.
What false evidence? The most he did was not tell them that he was the very man they were wanting to kill.
And that's not lying. That's just omission of the truth.
Besides, if these people have murder in their heart how good could they have been to have around? Don't you think that's evidence enough of their being a threat?
The man never took away their willpower. They made a choice of their own free will, yes?
If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
Justice outside the moral good
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"for his own selfish gains"
Why do people look at take overs as purely selfish? Can't it be because we think it's the right thing to do?
Maybe the methods were under-handed but just maybe Group X was bad and the man truly did feel it was time they were dealt it.
Just maybe. :P
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Maybe it is. But if he needs to create false evidence as a reason for this, it probably isn't. If the group was a genuine threat there would be plenty of evidence to suggest it without needing to create some by using a trap. Resorting to under-hand methods would be unnecessary if the threat was real.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What false evidence? The most he did was not tell them that he was the very man they were wanting to kill.
And that's not lying. That's just omission of the truth.
Besides, if these people have murder in their heart how good could they have been to have around? Don't you think that's evidence enough of their being a threat?
The man never took away their willpower. They made a choice of their own free will, yes?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Let me put it another way-
If not for their own actions, nothing would have happened. Everything was in their court.
If anything, the whole situation is their fault.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you're saying that if I get someone riled up and they kill my sweet old grandma, then they're not a threat?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I'm saying that it was your intention for them to kill your sweet old grandma. So you must be at least an equal threat to them.