What kind of fallacy is "Try explaining this to victim's parents"

I am wondering about certain kind of argument - what kind of fallacy would it be. It goes like that:

A: X is not criminally liable for what he did because [something]
B: Try to explain this to victim's relatives!

I suspect this is kind of an Appeal to Emotion but I wonder if it is a specific subtype or something else. :)

Thank you in advance!

Let’s change Bo’s hypothetical a bit:


Person #1: The convicted-by-jury gunman, of killing 20 innocent people doesn’t deserve the death penalty, because by definition, he had to have been mentally ill (i.e., insane) to do such a thing.

Person #2 - Try telling that to the victims families.

Person #1 - are you suggesting because the victims’ families have an irrational desire for retribution based on what is clearly a highly emotionally-charged situation for them, that the gunman deserves the death penalty ?

Person #2 – Yes, except their desire is for Justice and is completely rational!

I submit this example a. preserves the OP’s postulate “Try telling that to the victims’ families” and b. avoids the non-sequitur & fallacy, by substituting a rational view, reflecting societal values, for the purely emotional (& irrational) reaction by Person #2 in Bo’s example. Thus, I think Bo is right; this postulate need not constitute a fallacy in all cases.
(Note: for clarity, it is given that the gunman was judged mentally competent while committing the act by the convicting jury.)

Maybe I did not formulated my example precisely. Let's try this way:

Person 1: Timmy accidentally pushed Sally off the cliff, hence he did not committed a crime because he had no intent (and only acts committed under particular state of mind are crimes).
Person 2: Try telling that to Sally's parents!
Person 1: Sally's parents' emotions about the person who caused Sally's death are irrelevant for whether he had the intent to do it and hence - whether he is guilty for committing a crime or not.

So I am referring to a case where Person 1 is pointing out some legitimate reason for someone to be excused for hers/his actions while Person 2's counterargument against that is that the excusing circumstances are not actually excusing because the relatives of those affected wouldn't understand or agree and would want a revenge.

Actually, in this latest iteration you appear to be making the case that Person # 1 is acknowledging the veracity of person # 2’s assertion of the parents’ non sequitur vis a vis their presumed emotional response. In other words, Person #1 relinquishes any of the parents’ responsibility for their presumed emotional & irrational (blaming) response, other than to say this response will be forthcoming. Person # 1 thus becomes complicit with person # 2 in acknowledging and accepting the parents’ anticipated non-sequitur fallacy (per Bo). (Of course, if Sally’s parents’ emotional response is merely one of sorrow or grief and not blaming Timmy, there is no fallacy whatsoever.)

Sounds like special pleading to me.