It seems that some Jews have a very interesting mindset as to when to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone and when not to. See some of the comments about this VIN story about the ZAKA workers who worked through Shabbos to save lives:
WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
can any 1 tell me which "posek " gave them "heter" 2 desecratShabbat
Chilul Shabbos! Plain and simple.
There is no machlokes here; there is NO opinion that permits this.
In other words, according to some of the commentators, there is absolutely no possible way that ZAKA could have done what they did without violating halacha. Seems fairly harsh. Of course, there were other commentators who were presenting the possibility that the actions of the ZAKA team were fine and commendable. Eventually, after some arguing, one commentator said the following:
How wonderful. If its a child molester, someone who steals from the government, or Tropper all we hear is 'dan l'chaf zechus!!!'. But when it comes to people saving lives all we get is righteous indignation and outrage from some people. Disgusting.
And it struck me that he was right. It would not surprise me at all to find that some of the very same people who condemn the ZAKA crew would be the same ones yelling "dan l'kaf z'chus" or "you don't know all the facts!" with regard to Tropper or the Spinka Rebbe or any other similar situation. Personally, I believe there are sufficient grounds to be dan l'kaf z'chus here as I have little doubt that ZAKA is in consultation with rabbinic authorities with regard to what they can and cannot do. Do I *know* that? No, but I highly doubt that they went there and acted completely on their own vis-a-vis Shabbos.
I gave the matter some thought and wondered why this case is so different that the "righteous" are out there screaming bloody murder (or chillul shabbos, as the case may be) here and not in the other cases. And then the answer struck me -- in this case, unlike the others, the beneficiaries of the actions in question are non-Jews. It seems to be that whenever a Rav is the "beneficiary" of an action that may be against the law (and halacha) we hear warnings from people to give them the benefit of the doubt. But when the benefactor is a non-Jew, all of a sudden there is no possible halachic justification and any possibility of "dan l'kaf z'chus" gets tossed out the window.
Or am I viewing this wrong?