Let me try this, for all of you belonging to the "Michael-Was Justified" or the "Fredo Had To Go" school of thought.

And I'll address this specifically to Apple or SB, since I know that you both have children:

Suppose the following:

That you are wealthy, and you have a brother who is hard up for money, so helps to arrange for the kidnapping of your daughter, expecting to share in the ransom.

Fortunately, the plot goes awry, your daughter returns home safely and unharmed, and only two years later, and accidentally, you learn of your brother's complicity, although you have no evidence to present to law enforcement authorities.

Would you kill your brother?

I would say, "No", you wouldn't.

You certainly would guard yourself and your family against him, confront him with your knowledge of his duplicity, and have nothing to do with him ever agian, but I don't think you would kill him.

The reason is because you are both law-abiding citizens, and as horrible as a kidnapping plot by your brother against your daughter would be, you still would not kill the guy.

So here's my question:

Why, just because Michael is a Mafia chief and a murderer, and a career criminal, is it any more morally justifiable for him to kill his brother than it would be for you to?

Does the fact that he's a criminal already make it right, but in your case, since your're not, it would be wrong?

Because he has the nerve to do it, where you might only wish to, does that make it right?

Would you do it if you head the nerve to?

Yes, Michael Corleone's life was bound by a moral code which is different than ours.

And that certainly explains his actions in killing his brother, but it does not, IMO, justify them.