It’s neither overly ambitious nor false. In both this case and the case of those on trial in Nuremburg there is a question about the responsibility of those who committed a crime. I take the position that the LEOs abused their authoriy and committed assault. So this isn’t about employees doing mundane things as part of their jobs. This is about shielding a crime behind the claim that they were simply doing their jobs.
The Nuremburg trials cannonized the legal principle that everyone has a moral duty to refuse immoral and/or unlawful orders. Assault is a crime. Murder is a crime. Legally the question asked and answered by the Nuremburg trials applies equally to both crimes. Yes murder and mass murder in particular are more henious than assault, but I wasn’t suggesting that assault and murder are the same thing. I was suggesting that crimes were being defended with the “just following orders” defense in both cases. Hence they are equal when comparing them. So you disregard the most important part of my point because of ... honestly ... a knee-jerk reaction.
Not only is your comparison laughable, it’s ridiculous. For you to somehow equate both is a stretch of epic proportions. Forcibly removing a passenger from a plane who refuses to cooperate is not unlawful or immoral.
If those LEOs removed someone unwelcomed in your home, would you also then make this same insane argument?
He wouldn’t vacate the aircraft, what would you do?