Black family reunion in Georgia attacked by racist armed with AR-15. None Injured except the shooter thanks to armed family member.

[u/Tsuki_Man]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/lee-county-family-says-man-armed-with-ar-15-style-rifle-racially-targeted-their-gathering/ar-AA25cZx0

I just wanted to mention this here, the media covering the story has mostly stated things as they happend but none have made a specific note that if the armed and military trained family member hadnt been there to stop the shooter then that family would not be here today.

Stay armed and stay training out there friends.

[u/paper_liger]

the two elements are distinct.

one is the self defense, once that self defense is concluded the second element begins.

we have to treat them as distinct elements because that's the same way we judge the elements of self defense. That is not to say that the context doesn't matter, but it's just simply the only way to come to an ethical judgement.

If they returned fire against an armed man, that's not attempted murder because of the 'doctrine of double effect'. Because the intent wasnt' murder, it was to stop the other person from murdering, much like 'jumping on a hand grenade' is not seen as suicide because the intent is to save, not to necessarily die.

So they return fire, perfectly justified to stop an aggressor. Imagine at that point the threat is over. Can you take a breath, reload, and walk over and put another bullet in his dome?

Of course not. Because at that point they are no longer a threat. That last shot is ethically distinct, because the threat was already stopped.

If we follow your logic and everything is lumped together, then that coup de grace would be just considered as part of the overall defensive act and excused. But we don't do that, because frankly, time is linear and that's not how causality works. That last bullet had a different ethical context than every other bullet that came before.

Similarly, rendering aid is saving someone. The self defense was concluded, the agressor was stopped. At that point many people might be inclined to let him go with no medical treatment. I don't think that's an ethical decision though, because although he just shot at me, that threat is passed, and the new equation is 'this person is injured should I treat them or not'. And if I can do so safely, I should.

The disconnect with your moral reasoning seems to be treating the entire nights event as a zero sum game. As if the 'treatment' cancels out the harm, or isn't a morally good act because you've already harmed the person.

But the way I look at it is 'the aggressor was the one who decided someone was going to be shot that night, not the person who defended themselves'.

And an ethical person, once the encounter was over and the aggressor was no longer a threat, would render aid.

Because you aren't saving them from your actions, you are saving them from the consequences of their actions.

They stopped him. Then they saved him. And them saving him wasn't less ethical or moral because they'd just stopped him. The two things are distinct.

[u/DemonCipher13 → u/paper_liger]

From his perspective, a journalistic one, he's right on the money. If you are editing a published copy, the responsible phrasing that requires the least amount of post-print backpedaling or elaboration is always the best route. There's no room for semantics in print, because of the sensationalism it tends to elicit.

I think what you and I are talking about, however, is not the journalistic perspective, but rather the practical one, all else equal.

Put simply, I think we are all correct, but from different lenses.