Rule of law also allows for banality of evil and bureaucratized, monopolized violence. I've seen some other arguments against sympathy in this thread (the murderer was wealthy himself, insurance companies aren't actually the archvillains of healthcare). Those other arguments haven't convinced me, but they certainly complicate the narrative.
A blind appeal to "rule of law" is the one argument that I think is stupid on its face. Law as the sole moral barometer will always result in marginalization and injustice. It is the function of protest, civil disobedience, and yes, sometimes violence, to shape law as a function of morality.
Rule of law says that the law applies to everyone. Living in a republic means we all bear some responsibility for not encoding violence in our laws, and have a recourse if we find evil emerges.
In other words, of course we need healthcare reform but literally killing healthcare leaders is a path to anarchy, not reform.
Those who beg for war usually get more war than they wanted.
A blind appeal to "rule of law" is the one argument that I think is stupid on its face. Law as the sole moral barometer will always result in marginalization and injustice. It is the function of protest, civil disobedience, and yes, sometimes violence, to shape law as a function of morality.