The Nazi case is easy to adjudicate because it involves certitude. The Nazis didn't have a "law enforcement" objective; they were executing a genocide.
I can't believe there's anyone on HN who thinks that really thinks putting a hit out on a SR snitch is defensible.
Feel free to scratch Nazis and insert any other example of extreme injustice perpetrated by organizations that considered themselves to be apart of some sort of law enforcement or judicial system.
Change the setting to the Underground Railroad and try that on for size: As far as the law was concerned, the people who were transported by the Underground Railroad were property. The law enforcement did not necessarily consider themselves to be apart of some sort of atrocity (although we can of course all agree that they were). They were, undeniably, law enforcement. There is no question in either of our minds that they were acting in a reprehensible manner, but they were nevertheless law enforcement.
It would be, unambiguously (in my not so humble opinion, although I can't believe there's anyone on HN who would disagree), justifiable to kill anybody that threatened to bring law enforcement down on the 'operators' or 'passengers' of the Underground Railroad.
Note that I am not saying that DPR putting out a hit is justifiable (and to continue to head off the annoyingly standard complaint others here like to throw out: No, I am not saying the Underground Railroad and the Silk Road are comparable in importance, severity, morality, etc).
What I am saying is that it sits in a gray area that requires some consideration. I am not willing to write it off carelessly.
There are probably a bunch of people on HN who think what the US government (or others) does in the war on drugs is ethically up there in the same ballpark as genocide. (I'm not among them.) Starting the reasoning from that perspective it's just as easy to see DPR's action as defensible as it is to see shooting the blackmailer in the Nazi example as defensible. Starting the reasoning from a more conservative prior, though, it's harder to tell. (Of course it's easy to see it's completely unjustifiable if in the prior mindset "ordering a hit on someone" is automatically unjustifiable.)
If you asked me what I would decide in a situation similar to DPR's two weeks ago, I doubt "put a hit on the blackmailer" would have crossed my mind... That's a totally different world to me. I think I might try guilt-tripping the blackmailer over the consequences if he released the information, or offer him a lesser amount of funds to buy some personal security against or transportation away from the supposed creditor... Who knows how successful either of those would be in stopping the release?
I'm curious what you would have had DPR do and what do you think the consequences would be?
You know what, scratch that last comment. I'll leave it there, but it is shit and I can do better. Let's bring this back down to Earth:
"Dan contacts Steve and tells Steve that he has information on drug dealers and users in Singapore. He intends to turn this information over to the government of Singapore. Steve knows that Singapore will execute many of these people, imprison others (some of them for life) and will viciously beat likely all of them."
How far can Steve go to ensure that Dan does not turn these people over to the government of Singapore? Is having Dan killed to spare those other people completely off the table?
Presumably if Steve really does think that Dan is bluffing, then Dan can show Steve the data he has. Should Steve, knowing that Dan really is in possession of the data he claims, take the chance that Dan has no interest in actually giving the data to the government of Singapore? That is a very high-stakes game.
Lets say that Steve is unwilling to call that bluff, or he is confident that there is no bluff. Is having Dan killed off the table for Steve?
Maybe just shoot him in the kneecap and warn him that next time it'll be in the head? Steve should have some obligation to dissuade dan from his course of action prior to killing him, no?
This conversation aside, I hope you understand that you never shoot somebody without the intention of killing them. Never. There is no such thing as shooting somebody with nonlethal intentions, or as any sort of "warning".
Back on point, the recognition that killing Dan is on the table at all puts us on the same page. I certainly would not suggest jumping straight to that unless the circumstances made it absolutely necessarily.
I'm not sure you thought that one through. Shoot him in the kneecap. He says "ok fine you're right", then goes home and delivers the people to their deaths. Then flies somewhere and hides.
Being shot in the kneecap is likely to make you run and hide as well as doing the act you've been threatening.
Edit: Kneecapping is only used where you believe the target will actually reform, or as intimidation on someone that doesn't have any leverage (like some poor kid that took out a loan and isn't paying it back). In high-stakes like the one outlined here, it's not relevant.
Also this whole subthread was supposed to be "given these priors" but everyone seems to get hung up on murder, ignoring that other peoples' deaths are regularly accepted in society by pretty much everything we do.
I can't believe there's anyone on HN who thinks that really thinks putting a hit out on a SR snitch is defensible.