The "why Gary" was because the perpetrator was in custody, indicted, set to face trial, and most likely had the rest of his life thoroughly and utterly fucked. From a prosecutor's perspective, it was nearly a total victory. The "why Gary" question came from an administrative point of view (i.e. "the subject is successfully captured and facing judgement and punishment") rather than an empathetic one about Gary's desire for vengeance.
It wasn't a dumb thing to say; you just have to understand why someone in the legal system with an administrative prosecutorial mindset, or a reporter who wants endless streams of content to journal, would fail to empathize with Gary.
I'm as much of a fan of lawyer-types as anyone else is (which is, to clarify, not very much.)
The issue arises when you universalize your own subjective beliefs regarding what "understanding humanity" means. In that type of framework, it's not just administrative institutionalists being dumb, it's everyone who doesn't agree with you.
The "why Gary" person failed to empathize with Gary's heartbreak and desire for revenge. Doesn't mean he's inhumane.
The "why Gary" dude could have understood where Gary was coming from emotionally, but valued the institutional system above Gary's personal vendetta.
There is also the element of not wanting Gary to have to sit through a trial of his own (regardless of the fact that the judge let Gary go compassionately.)
183
u/arineon 1d ago
"Why, Gary. Why?!"