The idea that any act is justifiable if it has some random even remotely positive impact on something-or-other somewhere down the line, which somehow removes personal responsibility from the perpetrator of the crime, is one that almost makes me reconsider the wrongness of setting people on fire. As does "if I didn't get to them someone else would so I'm doing them a favor by getting to them first so the other person can't." The end result from the POV of the victim is different *how*, exactly?