chapotraphouse

Well let's dissect this. To you it's the "strapping on a deadly weapon in defense of the state/property that means you're accepting the risk of getting got." (Emphasis mine). I think you'd agree it's not so much physical act of strapping a weapon that really matters but the accepting of the risk that to you makes a person an acceptable target or not. In your eyes, the difference between combatant and civilian (since you used that word "civilian" to describe the CEO, as set apart from the cop) is whether they've "accepted risk." First of all, cops don't accept the risk. They are the most risk-averse motherfuckers you will ever meet. It's why they are vastly more likely to die of a heart attack, or covid, or fucking suicide than "on line of duty" and why they protect their own with immediate lethal force against even a relatively light threat, but do not use that same force for the protection of actual civilians, even ones presumably on their side. Cops are NOT accepting the risk either, they're just pretending to. But let's set that aside because since you were ok with what happened to the cop, what's really relevant here is your uncomfortability with the killing of the CEO.

So we'll take it as a given (though it's not actually true) that cops are accepting the risk when they strap up, that they are no longer "civilians," and we'll also assume (because it's true) that the CEO was not expecting or accepting any risk. But that is literally the fucking problem we are up against with fighting capital! These actual villains, the people who maintain and perpetuate the class war, literally ruling over the system that prevents a world where everyone's basic needs are met, they can (and do) do things that cause the death and immiseration of millions of people but they do so without any expectation or acceptance of a possibility that they themselves may face consequences let alone be harmed as a result of their crimes, the horrors they inflict on their fellow humans. They didn't "accept any risk" because they have wrapped themselves up in their stolen wealth, protected themselves with layer upon layer that insulates them from any consequences for what they do. The cops who you say did accept the risk, are but one of those layers. Ah, how nice it is for the bourgeoisie to murder with impunity without having to "accept any risk" that someone will do a fraction to them of what they do to others every day. So horrifically privileged to be able to commit mass murder all day (as long as it's via slow violence, since that's ok with liberals!) and then go home and take a hot bath, drink some wine before dozing off to sleep peacefully in their villas or mansions without even a fleeting thought that one of their victims might see the reality of the situation, decide to sacrifice their own broken life for a chance at justice, and then somehow get past all the CEO's layers of security - layers of security both in the literal sense and in terms of how well trained society is to grant them de-facto immunity, the same way you yourself are trained.

@XxFemboy_Stalin_420_69xX@hexbear.net already touched on this, but how about an analogy. Let's say there's a battlefield where soldiers are dying by the thousands at the behest of their commanding officers, a few ranks (i.e. layers of abstraction and layers of protection) up from the soldiers, the generals. Let's go ahead and make them Nazis or better yet IDF just so the point is nice and clear and so it is also clear that the battle is asymmetrical, with all the technology and manufactured "law" on their side. Those officers presiding over the slaughter do not expect to die. They are not "accepting any risk" as they hang back, hundreds of miles, perhaps even a continent away from the fighting. Maybe they're even at home with their shoes off. But they are responsible for the wiping out of countless working class lives, obviously the resistance fighters who they are intending to kill, but also they're fine sending their own soldiers to die as well, so long as it's not too many such that a layer of protection is lost for the generals. By your logic, it's fine if someone, even someone coincidentally uncaring about the sides in this conflict, kills some soldiers (cops) but not if he broke in that general's house and offed him. You would be uncomfortable with celebrating that. It's like those libified action movies where the hero kills scores of goons working for the bad guy, but then when it comes time to kill the bad guy, the hero decides to take the higher road and spare the bad guy's life. No. That's bullshit. These people, the warhawk generals of the analogy, and the CEO in this real life incident, they are the ones who deserve a bullet (or worse) far more than any of the soldiers/cops (who deserve it as well). And they still deserve it no matter how they get it, even if it's some chud who agrees with them on most of their points but goes on a sprees and randomly does it.

I'm also not fully convinced of the story we're being told and that this was random, I am amenable to the possibility that she was in fact the target, but that's beside the point. It is unambiguously good that she died. Anyone uncomfortable with that either does not understand some very fundamental truths about class and the role of CEOs in the murder of countless working class individuals, or they don't actually care about those murdered working class individuals, or they are simply not a leftist and actually stand to defend the bourgeoisie against the repercussions for their crimes against working class people. Of course those aren't mutually exclusive, someone "uncomfortable" with it could be all three of those things.

yeah the CEO is Bad and Evil for being on the wrong side of class war but I don't support random violence

It was still "random violence" that killed the cop, and you were ok with that. It is not the randomness that you have a problem with. It is what you already confessed to above: that the CEO wasn't "accepting any risk." But that is not an excuse and if anything is all the more another reason that CEOs should die by any means because what grotesque cowardice it is to commit mass social murder but only do it because you think there is no risk for doing so.

(in which this person was not the target, incidentally)

Like I said, I'm not sure that's even true. It might be, but it's beside the point because you were ok with the cop getting killed but the cop was also not "the target."

I don't support random violence either tactically or morally

There's some goalpost shifting going on here because this was initially about you being "uncomfortable" with the rest of us cheering on the death of the CEO. There actually are some valid reasons not to "support" adventurism (I actually go against the hexbear grain here and think that in a world where those who organize are frequently murdered before they are able to accomplish anything, adventurism sometimes becomes the only way for some people to fight back in a way that at least brings about a modicum of justice - but that's for another post). That's not your issue with it though. You gave that away when you said it was ok, that it was a more acceptable calculus, for the cop to die. You really are seeing this CEO as an innocent civilian (the latter word being one you even used) rather than the high ranking officer that they are.

Or just what @Infamousblt@hexbear.net and @Kuori@hexbear.net already said more succinctly with fewer words.

The thing that annoys me about this take is that you're basically just saying that physical violence is the only kind of violence. So forcing people to be homeless, denying them medical care, starving them to death... somehow, for you, none of that is violence even if it directly leads to death.

Blackstone absolutely and very intentionally kills people through all of those methods and more, but you're fine with that because it's not physically and immediately physical harm?