[Poll] [Discuss] Did Jasnah do the right thing?

[Chinkoln]

8 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

No I understand, however, if we can't all agree on a point, why is it allowed to overcome the right of speech?

Well that’s the thing, it kind of doesn’t. It does, but in different ways. If you have something you want to say, there is some country in the world that allows it. In Europe many countries make it illegal to use Nazi symbols or use anti-Semitic speech. But in the US, you technically can without getting charged (if you start to get violent or damage property, then that is illegal, but we are only discussing the act of speaking right now). 

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Chinkoln said:

She put herself in danger,

What about walking down an alley causes the men to act?

Quote

showing wealth with the knowledge it would put her in harm’s way.

She only had the soulcaster, which she revealed briefly once to check her surroundings. After which it was covered. What about her thought process behind it made the men attack?

Quote

This may be legal, but in my mind it is wrong.

So going back, what specific action did she take to "try to make them attack"? If it was going down that alley, then did all the prior victims try to make them attack? if it was having wealth, then did any of the prior victims going home after seeing what amounts to a broadway play (theater district) try to make them attack? Lol to put a humorous slant on it, did Batman's parents make the assailant attack them? They left a theater. They were well dressed and rich. They traveled through an alley. 

 

Basically it is seeming to me that the point being made is because Jasnah wanted the men to die, she tricked them, baited them, or made them attack (whichever word you prefer to use). But what I don't understand is, there isn't a single action Jasnah took out of the ordinary different than any other person that walked down that street. She did not take any active action to elicit the attack any different than what every other person did that walked down that street. So how is what she was thinking, which they cannot read her mind, result in them being baited? 

 

edit: side note just to clarify why I am saying what I am saying. I understand and agree if a person knows certain individuals where be at a location, take an action, and intends to kill those individuals if they commit that action, then self defense is difficult to prove because of the premeditation. Where I am getting confused is the sense that because she thought that, she was baiting, making, enticing, or whatever word you chose to use those men. I have in the past gone over the scene quite extensively and I really cannot find anything that she actively did that could be construed as providing them with any outside impetus to cause them to attack her. The mechanism seems pretty clearly already in place. If any other individual had done like every other individual had done, like Jasnah had done, they would have been attacked and killed, just like what was attempted on Jasnah. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Chinkoln]

I’m not saying she forced them to attack. I’m saying she knowingly walked into an area with men that already had their minds set on theft and murder. She then showed wealth that, scientifically, releases chemicals in the human brain that will cause people to act more irrationally.

No, she didn’t force them to do anything. But it was still wrong. That was the whole point of her doing this, to show that legality is one thing, and then everyone has their own system of ethics and morals. This thread is reinforcing her point over and over. Everyone is different.

[Pathfinder]

29 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

She then showed wealth that, scientifically, releases chemicals in the human brain that will cause people to act more irrationally.

See this is still the point I am getting stuck on. Now in Jasnah's case as I said, she opened it briefly to check her surroundings. No one noticed. But even if they had, how is it any different than a woman walking down that alley with earrings and a necklace? We know the types of people that walked down that alley before. So again, did Batman's parents by leaving a theater with earrings and a necklace, and a watch cause the mugger to act more irrationally and attack? Further she did not take any particular care in arranging expensive items around her. She literally got out of a bath, dried off, put on a dress and her soulcaster and left. A soulcaster covered for 99 percent of the trip. 

Basically why is the fact she wore wealth to be considered in regards to the men attacking? When it is not considered for the prior attacks?

Quote

No, she didn’t force them to do anything. But it was still wrong. That was the whole point of her doing this, to show that legality is one thing, and then everyone has their own system of ethics and morals. This thread is reinforcing her point over and over. Everyone is different.

Sorry, to clarify, I am not trying to change your opinion. Totally respect you feel she was wrong. I am just lost on the verbiage. The individual (checked back and saw it was you that I quoted lol) I quoted said her actions were her trying to make them attack. But I do not see how any action she took was making them attack. 

 

edit: I will try wording it this way, and then stop bringing it up so as not to beat a dead horse

"What action did Jasnah take differently than any other individual that was accosted by those men, to be considered as Jasnah trying to make, entice, bait, encourage, convince, etc those men to attack?" 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Chinkoln]

I will say again, Jasnah did nothing legally wrong, but morally and ethically it is wrong to seek out a situation that could lead you to need to defend yourself to the death.

But you are right, Jasnah did not take any action that forced the men to do anything.

[Pathfinder]

3 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

I will say again, Jasnah did nothing legally wrong, but morally and ethically it is wrong to seek out a situation that could lead you to need to defend yourself to the death.

But you are right, Jasnah did not take any action that forced the men to do anything.

Ah, that's the kind of verbiage I could get behind. She sought a situation that could potentially lead to her needing to defend herself, and you feel that is morally and ethically wrong. Cool, totally respect your view. I personally disagree, but again respect it. Thanks!

[Karger]

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

She sought a situation that could potentially lead to her needing to defend herself

Her intention was clearly to give herself just cause to act in self defense.  Jasnah's intention was to kill those four men.  Under the circumstances you may or may not consider her behavior justified.  Those four would almost certainly have killed her if given the opportunity and most people would say Jasnah was within her rights to defend her own life regardless of her intentions.  I personally think that since she could easily have just immobilized them and handed them over to the authorities that her actions were unethical as she personally made the decision to kill when she did not have to.

[Letryx13]

2 hours ago, Karger said:

Her intention was clearly to give herself just cause to act in self defense.  Jasnah's intention was to kill those four men.  Under the circumstances you may or may not consider her behavior justified.  Those four would almost certainly have killed her if given the opportunity and most people would say Jasnah was within her rights to defend her own life regardless of her intentions.  I personally think that since she could easily have just immobilized them and handed them over to the authorities that her actions were unethical as she personally made the decision to kill when she did not have to.

I think that's a pretty succinct way to put it.

[SomeRandomPeasant]

Did these footpads deserve to die?  Maybe.  But that doesn't give someone the right to exact vigilante justice on who ever they thinks deserves it. 

Is Jasnah really that different than Nale the Herald of Justice? Nale was perfectly willing to (legally) kill a child because he believes that killing Radiants would end the Apocalypse.  A worthy goal some might say.  But in the end, he was wrong.  With noone else questioning her decision making, Jasnah has the potential of doing something truly awful because she believes her own logic is unassailable.

One the most heroic and tragically flawed aspect of Jasnah's personality is that she makes morally dubious decisions for the greater good.  She always thinks that her logic is perfectly sound and she is smart enough that most of the time she is actually right.  She has made enough right choices in her life that she trusts her own decision making for good reason.  But someone who thinks they are never wrong is dangerous, because noone can act without bias 100% of the time.  So someone independently dispensing justice as they see fit is pretty terrifying. 

By the way, it is really nice to see both sides making good points!

Edited December 11, 2021 by SomeRandomPeasant

[Frustration]

6 minutes ago, SomeRandomPeasant said:

Did these footpads deserve to die?  Maybe.  But that doesn't give someone the right to exact vigilante justice on who ever they thinks deserves it. 

Is Jasnah really that different than Nale the Herald of Justice? Nale was perfectly willing to (legally) kill a child because he believes that killing Radiants would end the Apocalypse.  A worthy goal some might say.  But in the end, he was wrong.  With noone else questioning her decision making, Jasnah has the potential of doing something truly awful because she believes her own logic is unassailable.

One the most heroic and tragically flawed aspect of Jasnah's personality is that she makes morally dubious decisions for the greater good.  She always thinks that her logic is perfectly sound and she is smart enough that most of the time she is actually right.  She has made enough right choices in her life that she trusts her own decision making.  But someone who thinks they are never wrong is dangerous, because noone can act without bias 100% of the time.  So someone independently dispensing justice as they see fit is pretty terrifying. 

By the way, it is really nice to see both sides making good points!

So question of clairification.

Why Nale is wrong while following the law, and Jasnah is wrong because she doesn't?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Ookla the Frustrated

[Experience]

I haven't read what everyone has said, so I dunno if it's been said before.

I think Jasnah was justified in doing this, if only because she was following her own moral code. I don't personally agree with what she did and think it's wrong, but that's because my moral compass doesn't align with hers. So she was 'justified', if in a convoluted way, though not necessarily right.

[SomeRandomPeasant]

35 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

So question of clairification.

Why Nale is wrong while following the law, and Jasnah is wrong because she doesn't?

That's a good question.  They are actually doing the same thing. 

They are both using the law as a shield against their actions, despite the fact that what they are doing is still morally dubious.  But in reality, they had both had an agenda that involved killing inconvenient people.  They both think they are doing things for the greater good, and I believe that they both have noble intentions. 

Nale once believed in the virtue of law as a concept, but now he uses the law as a tool to carry out his plans.  Jasnah hasn't become as corrupted as Nale, but I am concerned that she seems to be going down that path.  It seems like Jasnah is willing to do anything, so long as the ends justify the means.

[NameIess]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Enthralled said:

I haven't read what everyone has said, so I dunno if it's been said before.

I think Jasnah was justified in doing this, if only because she was following her own moral code. I don't personally agree with what she did and think it's wrong, but that's because my moral compass doesn't align with hers. So she was 'justified', if in a convoluted way, though not necessarily right.

I wouldn't say that Jasnah was justified in doing what she did simply because she followed her own code. Using that logic, very few people would ever be unjustified in doing anything, no matter how horrific.

[trytoguess]

Hmm, I think in a better more just world that cared about rehabilitation, what Jasna did would be incredibly immoral. But in current day Roshar, I can't really find fault with her actions. The way I see it, there's two ways things could gone down. Jasna simply kill the men. Or, she cripples the men, takes them to the local law enforcement who then summarily execute them w/o trial because they're not going to doubt the word of Alethkar royalty. Neither options strike me as more moral then the other. They're both end with death, only one needlessly involves a disinterested & not all that just third party. I simply do not understand why bringing in law enforcement would be so important.

Also, I noticed people mentioning how Jasna could've disabled the men and I find this mindset odd. Jasna is an Elsecaller. Her abilities (transformation, transportation & shardblade) don't really give her the ability to disable a person w/o injuring them. So, if she did try to subdue those men, they most likely would've ended up crippled or severely injured. Imo, a quick execution is better then spending a few hours/days crippled by a shardblade then executed...

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

when you cause someone to attack you by walking into the open with a lot of your possessions, is it really the attackers fault? but they did try to attack.

my conclusion is that both parties are guilty in this scenario, trust me I have thought this through.

[+Bliev]

It's interesting in this thread how quickly the victim blaming ensues. ;-) Jasnah foresees this, though, when she asks why can't a woman (rich or otherwise) walk around at night? Sure, it may not be "prudent" if the goal is to not be victimized, and we can want people to not do this, so they stay safe. But if I walked through a dark alley after a broadway show and got killed, and a bunch of people were like, "well, she should have known better," I'd argue that's a worse ethical argument than Jasnah's was. 

In this context, I don't really have much of a problem with Jasnah's actions. But I don't hate on people whose reaction is more like Shallan's. It is a brutal decision to take a life, and Shallan is much more sheltered than Jasnah, who has been mired in the world of assassination and espionage and war for her entire life. Those men thought they could hurt women with impunity. They were wrong and paid the price for it. She does not owe them mercy. Could she have granted it? Sure. But her decision to act in this way was a logical one that I understand. She has the ability to help make the city a bit safer. The government is doing nothing (and she had no control over that--it's not her city, and she has no power within it). But she does not feel justified doing so on suspicion. She waits for them to act. At any time they could have chosen otherwise, and then, so should she. But when they acted, she responded in a justifiable manner.

The part that does bother me is that she brought Shallan along without warning her or letting her choose. That, I feel, is not justified. Even if she is her teacher/mentor. Jasnah's lack of empathy or respect of Shallan bothers me more than her choice to defend herself in that moment. 

[Letryx13]

On 12/10/2021 at 1:06 PM, SomeRandomPeasant said:

Did these footpads deserve to die?  Maybe.  But that doesn't give someone the right to exact vigilante justice on who ever they thinks deserves it. 

Is Jasnah really that different than Nale the Herald of Justice? Nale was perfectly willing to (legally) kill a child because he believes that killing Radiants would end the Apocalypse.  A worthy goal some might say.  But in the end, he was wrong.  With noone else questioning her decision making, Jasnah has the potential of doing something truly awful because she believes her own logic is unassailable.

One the most heroic and tragically flawed aspect of Jasnah's personality is that she makes morally dubious decisions for the greater good.  She always thinks that her logic is perfectly sound and she is smart enough that most of the time she is actually right.  She has made enough right choices in her life that she trusts her own decision making for good reason.  But someone who thinks they are never wrong is dangerous, because noone can act without bias 100% of the time.  So someone independently dispensing justice as they see fit is pretty terrifying. 

By the way, it is really nice to see both sides making good points!

Agreed.  This kind of pride is exactly Taravangian's problem too.

On 12/10/2021 at 3:29 PM, Ookla the unintelligible said:

I wouldn't say that Jasnah was justified in doing what she did simply because she followed her own code. Using that logic, very few people would ever be unjustified in doing anything, no matter how horrific.

Dalinar makes this exact point Adolin in RoW. People can rationalize almost anything, and if they use that alone to justify their actions, then there's no real restraint on them.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Letryx13

[AquaRegia]

18 hours ago, Bliev said:

It's interesting in this thread how quickly the victim blaming ensues.

While I understand the point you make here, I can't help but wonder: who really were the "victims" in this scenario?

Jasnah is, in essence, a superhero.  Magical healing, soulcasting, etc., and she knows this.  The bandits do not, and neither does Shallan.  If Captain Marvel walks down a dark alley in a bad part of town and some petty thieves wind up dead, is she a "victim"?  I think that earlier characterizations of this as "hunting" are more apt.

I agree that Jasnah's disregard for Shallan is a problem.  I feel that Jasnah's disregard for the lives of the people she used as objects in her "lesson" is also problematic.

I further stipulate that if Jasnah were a vanilla human (without Radiant abilities), her behavior would be far less culpable.  "Self-defense" in that case is much more defensible.

[SomeRandomPeasant]

20 hours ago, Bliev said:

In this context, I don't really have much of a problem with Jasnah's actions...Those men thought they could hurt women with impunity. They were wrong and paid the price for it. She does not owe them mercy. Could she have granted it? Sure. But her decision to act in this way was a logical one that I understand.

Jasnah's actions were an unjustified use of self defense.

You say that Jasnah doesn't owe them mercy.  I would say a normal pedestrian who was simply using self defense does not owe them mercy.  However, I think someone like a cop, or an uber powerful Radiant like Jasnah should not seek death as their first option.  Jasnah was in even less danger than a mortal cop.  She was not simply acting in self defense, she is an ultra competent demigod who had complete control over the situation.  I think we can all agree that self defense is perfectly legitimate.  But very bad people have also used self defense as an excuse to carry out very bad agendas.

For example, let's say Jonathan makes a deliberate attempt to provoke Alison.  He calls Alison else the f-word, or the n-word, or some other slur.  Jonathan keeps antagonizing Alison but he doesn't lay a finger on her.  Than, Alison snaps and attacks Jonathan.  Now that Alison tried to draw first blood, Jonathan shoots her dead, and then claims self defense.

Obviously we would agree that Jonathan isn't acting very morally.  Jonathan is clearly intentionally using a tactic to legally kill someone.  So the biggest difference between Jonathan and Jasnah is whether you believe that the people they killed deserved it.  In this case, Jasnah might have been right about these criminals.  She also might have been right about serving the death penalty.  But their is a reason that vigilante justice is against the law.  People kill people wrongly all time over persevered slights.  Sometimes they kill the wrong person, sometimes they use past crimes as an excuse to carry out inappropriate forms of retributive justice.  Now, Jasnah is far smarter than the average lynch mob, but someone who thinks that they have the right to track down criminals and execute them has the potential to be very dangerous.  I can understand why, in this situation, you would see Jasnah's actions are justified.  I just think Jasnah's casual use of vigilante justice far more concerning than you do.

Edited December 12, 2021 by SomeRandomPeasant

[+Bliev]

1 hour ago, SomeRandomPeasant said:

I can understand why, in this situation, you would see Jasnah's actions are justified.  I just think Jasnah's casual use of vigilante justice far more concerning than you do

I don’t think that walking down the street should count as provoking violence. And while she knew she could protect herself, the criminals do not. I don’t see how that matters. I think it’s okay to expect Jasnah to show them mercy. I also think it’s okay that she didn’t. This is not our society—where there is a criminal justice system of any sort. Or any sort of rule of law or accountability. In fact, that’s a key component of my reaction. It’s not even Batman-esque in that there is a whole Gotham police force that she could call in to do the job. This was not just a failure of these individuals, but a failure of the system to keep its people safe. So she did it. 
 

I think it’s fine that some people are really uncomfortable with this! It’s really a fascinating philosophical debate. But that’s why I shared my perspective. Which is odd because I’m a Shallan super fan, and a super-pacifist irl, so perhaps I’m an odd choice to completely understand (and kind of agree with) Jasnah’s actions here. 

[Frustration]

3 hours ago, SomeRandomPeasant said:

Jasnah's actions were an unjustified use of self defense.

You say that Jasnah doesn't owe them mercy.  I would say a normal pedestrian who was simply using self defense does not owe them mercy.  However, I think someone like a cop, or an uber powerful Radiant like Jasnah should not seek death as their first option.  Jasnah was in even less danger than a mortal cop.  She was not simply acting in self defense, she is an ultra competent demigod who had complete control over the situation.  I think we can all agree that self defense is perfectly legitimate.  But very bad people have also used self defense as an excuse to carry out very bad agendas.

For example, let's say Jonathan makes a deliberate attempt to provoke Alison.  He calls Alison else the f-word, or the n-word, or some other slur.  Jonathan keeps antagonizing Alison but he doesn't lay a finger on her.  Than, Alison snaps and attacks Jonathan.  Now that Alison tried to draw first blood, Jonathan shoots her dead, and then claims self defense.

Obviously we would agree that Jonathan isn't acting very morally.  Jonathan is clearly intentionally using a tactic to legally kill someone.  So the biggest difference between Jonathan and Jasnah is whether you believe that the people they killed deserved it.  In this case, Jasnah might have been right about these criminals.  She also might have been right about serving the death penalty.  But their is a reason that vigilante justice is against the law.  People kill people wrongly all time over persevered slights.  Sometimes they kill the wrong person, sometimes they use past crimes as an excuse to carry out inappropriate forms of retributive justice.  Now, Jasnah is far smarter than the average lynch mob, but someone who thinks that they have the right to track down criminals and execute them has the potential to be very dangerous.  I can understand why, in this situation, you would see Jasnah's actions are justified.  I just think Jasnah's casual use of vigilante justice far more concerning than you do.

How on earth did Jasnah provoke an attack from people who she had never met?

She did nothing to them until they attacked her, she walked down an alleyway.

[Szeth_Pancakes]

whoa i forgot to follow this and it blew up o.O

[SomeRandomPeasant]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

How on earth did Jasnah provoke an attack from people who she had never met?

She did nothing to them until they attacked her, she walked down an alleyway.

Where did I say Jasnah provoked them? I even said Jasnah might have been in the right to kill those footpads. 

My greatest concern is that she clearly went into that alley with the intention of executing vigilante justice.  Did she have to kill the footpads? As I have said many times, maybe.  But Jasnah certainly had other options.  This isn't a case of cop shooting someone who came at them with a knife.  This is like Superman breaking the necks of criminals who attacked him with a knife.  And in Jasnah's case, one of them was fleeing.  If Kharbranth was a lawless hellhole, than I can understand this form of retributive justice.  But vigilante justice is a dangerous path to walk. 

Jasnah told Shallan that the law as ineffectual in stopping crime in that area.  So, according to Jasnah, the criminals must be killed.  There can be no middle ground were she uses her influence as a Kholin to make effective changes.  Taking a third option won't always work, and I can understand someone resorting to butchery if they have no other options.  But it is troubling that Jasnah had no trouble taking the law into her own hands.  In this singular instance, there is enough of a grey area that Jasnah has good reason to think the way she does.  But this could be the beginning of her becoming a ruthless tyrant.  This way of thinking is no different than Nale or Taravangian, people who have committed atrocities for the greater good.

This to me seems like an interesting conundrum for Jasnah to have.  She isn't entirely wrong, but it could lead to Jasnah unilaterally making decisions for the rest of Roshar that would make her more of a tyrant than a benevolent ruler.  Decisions that even though the cost may be high, are excusable because they were for the greater good.  Why are they for the greater good? Because Jasnah says so.  And being as intelligent she is, she has good reason to trust her beliefs more than others.  But someone who is accountable only to themselves is frightening.

[Tglassy]

Anyone can justify anything.  Hitler justified his concentration camps.  By putting the blame on 'undesirable peoples', he was able to take a nation who had just lost a world war, and got (potentially unjustly) footed with the bill for the entire thing, and nearly conquered the world with them.  If he had succeeded in conquering the world, the history books would say his use of the Concentration Camps to unify his people was 'for the greater good', in that it helped unify a people into becoming dominant.  

Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes.  Supposedly, in his mind, he was doing the world a favor by getting rid of the cancer that needs to be cut out of society.

Where do you draw the line?  If Jasnah was justified in what she did, then where is the line?  The argument is that he Law wasn't working, at least not in that area, so she took it into her own hands.  These were Rapists and Murderers.  They deserved their fate.  

Nale is killing innocent people.  Every person on the planet has committed some kind of crime.  He spends all his time hunting down whatever it is the people he wants to kill has done so he can legally kill them.  If someone does even the slightest thing that technically would warrant death, he kills them.  And he feels he is perfectly justified.  He is ridding the world of that which could destroy it.  Cutting out the cancer.  Just like Jack the Ripper.  Or Hitler.  

So Jasnah goes after known criminals.  Makes sure they are going to attack before killing them.  That's a very short step away from Nale.  Or Jack the Ripper.  

The reason we have Laws in the first place is to protect the Innocent.  In America at least, you have to be proven guilty.  The reason for that is to protect the Innocent people as much as possible from a false accusation.  You get a trial.  You get to present your evidence. If you're found guilty, you face your punishment, but it's fair.  Or it's supposed to be.  

The reason for this is simple:  If one person is able to simply kill someone they think is guilty, then you wind up with Nale, Hitler and Jack the Ripper.  People doing what they thought was for the good of humanity, killing those who are causing the world to be destroyed.  Cutting out the infection.  

To be entirely honest, Jasnah shouldn't have gone after the Thugs.  She should have gone after the Constables.  People don't just become Thugs.  They are often pushed into it.  But corrupt constables choose to be that way.  They are the reason the ally was a cesspit.  If they were taken care of, and new Constables who would uphold the law were put in place, then the area would become safe.  The problem isn't the Darkeyes pushed to robbing people.  It's in the corrupt Lighteyes who are facilitating it.  

But instead, Jasnah went after the men.  She killed a few thugs.  But others will take their place.  So she didn't really do anything but kill a few people.  She wasn't trying to fix the problem.  She wanted to vent her frustration on men who abuse women.  I think that's Jasnah's thing.  She hates men who abuse women, and that vents into men in general.  She talks a lot about wanting to help Terevangian's people, but I don't believe her.  I think she just wanted to kill these men.  And she knew they'd attack her if she flaunted her wealth.  She didn't bother learning who these men were.  She didn't bother seeing if any could be redeemed.  Shallan took an entire band of men who'd likely murdered just as many as these thugs and turned them into, if not respectable, at least more honorable men.  Jasnah just killed them.  Like tossing trash, feeling like she'd done the right thing.  Like these men were just the cancer that needed to be cut out of society.  

[ConfusedCow]

          Why did Jasnah kill? To help Taravangian? Nonsense, he's a king he can help himself. To protect herself?  Nope.  To protect others? Doubtful, she hasn't removed the corrupt policing problem. That's the real threat to pedestrians. I'm sure there are more poor, dangerous greedy men. 

         So why? I think the real reason, despite her justifications, is the abuse she suffered as a child.  Consider her emotional sequence, relaxed bathing, confident, mischevious (opens one eye and smiles), scandalously free (hair), eager (quick walking), didactic (enjoying her lecture), hard and grim, kills first two, calm, kills second two, eerily calm, expressionless, and finally (when questioned in the planquin) an edge in her voice that Shallan had never heard before and made her question what had been done to her.  No matter what she says, she killed to feel powerful, free, at peace, and perhaps as a symbolic revenge.  

     Jasnah is human in her anger and pain, even her justifications, but her actions are troubling and harmful.  It worries me that so many don't see that. Ethics, people, can't be reduced to simple rules like who threatened who first.