Killer or Crusader? The Alarming Shift in How We Justify Violence

At a time when fear of violent victimization is at its highest in three decades, one would expect a broad rejection of violence in all forms. Yet ironically, some acts of violence are not just tolerated, but celebrated. The case of Luigi Mangione, accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is a striking example of this shift. Despite being charged with murder, Mangione has amassed widespread public support, with more than $500,000 raised for his legal defense.

This phenomenon raises urgent questions: Why are some willing to condemn random violence while applauding targeted attacks? And what does this say about our evolving attitudes toward justice and retaliation?

Mangione’s supporters argue that his act was not senseless, but rather a symbolic stand against corporate greed and the failures of the American healthcare system. This reasoning reflects moral disengagement, a psychological process that allows people to suspend their usual opposition to violence when they believe it serves a greater purpose. By framing Mangione’s actions as justified resistance to oppressive medical health insurance costs rather than murder, supporters absolve him of personal responsibility and turn him into a folk hero.

Another factor at play is instrumental rationality, in which violence is viewed as a necessary tool when peaceful activism has failed to bring change. As frustration with economic inequality and corporate influence grows, some have abandoned traditional methods of reform in favor of direct action. Echoing the sentiment that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” this shift is fueling a dangerous normalization of political violence.

Adding to this, emotional catharsis helps explain why certain violent acts receive public sympathy. As anger over systemic issues builds, some find psychological relief in seeing an institution or figure of power face retribution. This response is not about genuine belief in violence as a solution, but rather an emotional reaction to years of perceived injustice.

What makes this support for violence even more perplexing is that it coexists with heightened public fear of victimization. With reports showing record-high concerns over personal safety, one might expect a broad societal rejection of any act that normalizes violence. Instead, there is a growing willingness to justify it under the right circumstances.

This contradiction stems from a shifting moral framework that judges violence not by the act itself, but by who the victim is. While random violence is feared and condemned, targeted violence against figures associated with systemic harm is often excused. This selective outrage highlights the erosion of a once-clear societal boundary: that violence, regardless of justification, is inherently destructive.

Applauding or excusing violence, even when it aligns with a cause, carries severe risks. First, it erodes social norms, making violence a more acceptable response to grievances. Once one act is justified, it becomes easier to rationalize others, setting a dangerous precedent. Second, violence escalates. What begins as a symbolic act of resistance can quickly spiral into cycles of retaliation, with no control over where it ends. Encouraging violence as a tool for justice does not limit it to those perceived as deserving—it eventually spreads, making everyone less safe. Lastly, it undermines legitimate movements. When violence is associated with advocacy, it delegitimizes the broader cause and alienates potential allies. Instead of drawing attention to the issue, it shifts focus to the act itself, providing an easy excuse for opponents to dismiss the movement entirely.

Mangione’s case is more than an isolated incident—it is a reflection of a society increasingly willing to justify violence when it aligns with its frustrations. While systemic issues demand attention, resorting to violence as a means of change only deepens divisions and fuels further instability.

Celebrating violence, no matter how righteous the cause may seem, leads to long-term harm. It is not an act of justice, but a step toward chaos. If society continues down this path, where the acceptability of violence is determined by whether we sympathize with the perpetrator, then no one will be safe from its consequences.

History has shown that violence does not lead to justice—it leads to more violence. The challenge now is whether we can reject it as a tool for change before it becomes an irreversible part of our culture.