THE VIDEO BELOW IS GRAPHIC, AND THE TITLE MISLEADING The following is my opinion about the recent (past few days) incident in which Braheme Days, a New Jersey police officer shot and killed Jerame Reid, a civilian who may or may not have been armed. When speaking in terms of morality, which is the real issue at hand, I believe that a moral act should be, at least in part, defined as an act that fits in with an ideal society. Given the above, I believe that acts of violence (where violence is the intentional harming of a person or persons) are never moral. Given that, it is a logical conclusion that doing a violent act in order to preserve ones own life is immoral. The way those ideas apply culpability in this case depends somewhat on whether Jerame Reid possessed a gun that was intended in any way to be used in any case for violence of any sort. Braheme Days was certainly culpable in my point of view, because it is clear that he was lethally violent toward Jerame Reid. Since I also evaluate the having intent to be violent as thinking in a way that is somewhat immoral, Jerame Reid may have been thinking in a way that was somewhat immoral. Since one synonym for the word immoral is the word unjustifiable, Days decision to attempt to kill was unjustifiable, even considering the situation and Reids intent was possibly (depending on whether they find a gun or not) unjustifiable, even considering the situation. Given all of this, and the idea that all things that are immoral are also bad, my conclusion is that Days made a bad decision in killing and Reid made a bad decision in obtaining a gun to be used for violence if he did in fact obtain one for that purpose.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:05:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015