Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is your stance on the heroes killing in comics?

I am VERY for it. Solves problems. Makes the villains gone for good. Prevents murder etc.

If Superman was willing to kill all his villains the world will be much safer. Same with everyone.

Killing = .

You run into slippery slope arguments there though.

I think the legal systems of such universes should be more willing to use the death penalty (though I'm usually opposed to that as well), but taking the law into your own hands sets a dangerous precedent. Fair trial, not vigilante justice, though I cautiously agree that killing isn't always a bad thing.

also, makes for no future villans, and condones murdering with no legal system involved...

i say nay...

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You run into slippery slope arguments there though.

I think the legal systems of such universes should be more willing to use the death penalty (though I'm usually opposed to that as well), but taking the law into your own hands sets a dangerous precedent. Fair trial, not vigilante justice, though I cautiously agree that killing isn't always a bad thing.

Joker has had a fair trial and still kills. If the same happened to him hundreds would be saved.

Theres a difference between our world and theirs. We don't have to deal with people who regally try to poison millions of people or kill people like that.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Joker has had a fair trial and still kills. If the same happened to him hundreds would be saved.

Theres a difference between our world and theirs. We don't have to deal with people who regally try to poison millions of people or kill people like that. well there are some exceptions, but usuallly no.

I'm pretty sure this thread has been done before, anyway....

Totally against it, pretty much for the reasons Digi said and the influence of my own Christian Morality As Christian Bale said in Batman begins, when asked why he didn't kill;

"That's what separates us from them."

Originally posted by Switch 07
Authority kill and the world is safer. They did lose it for a while but they know when to stop.

If you call a world full of murderers safer, then you have a very shrewed sense of morality

Originally posted by willRules
I'm pretty sure this thread has been done before, anyway....

Totally against it, pretty much for the reasons Digi said and the influence of my own Christian Morality As Christian Bale said in Batman begins, when asked why he didn't kill;

"That's what separates us from them."

What separates them is they kill for wrong reasons. Heroes don't.

If theres a thread find it.

My search must be broke.

Originally posted by Switch 07
What separates them is they kill for wrong reasons. Heroes don't.

If theres a thread find it.

My search must be broke.

Oh and what's a justifiable reason for murder?

I vote yes, because we can't really expect a world with multiple mass (MASS) murderers to apply the same rules that we, relatively sheltered in comparison, do.

On the other hand, I vote no, because a comic where they have to make up a new villain or bring another back from the dead every couple issues would be teh suxzorz.

Originally posted by willRules
If you call a world full of murderers safer, then you have a very shrewed sense of morality

If they are killing for the right reasons.

TBH I have hardly any sense of morality.

Originally posted by SpookySmurph
I vote yes, because we can't really expect a world with multiple mass (MASS) murderers to apply the same rules that we, relatively sheltered in comparison, do.

On the other hand, I vote no, because a comic where they have to make up a new villain or bring another back from the dead every couple issues would be teh suxzorz. Ignore the comic aspect think of their worlds etc.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Ignore the comic aspect think of their wolds etc. Which I answered in the first bit.

Originally posted by SpookySmurph
Which I answered in the first bit. I know that it was to everyone but using your comment as an example.

Originally posted by Switch 07
If they are killing for the right reasons.

Well, personally I can't see a justifiable reason for murder, Call me naive if you want but I'd rather you call me Will

Originally posted by Switch 07
TBH I have hardly any sense of morality.

So if Joke killed the entire city of Goth would you want him in jail or in a grave not doing the same?

Absolutely for killing.

If there is one things years of comics have shown us, not killing the bad guys solve nothing.

Originally posted by Morridini
Absolutely for killing.

If there is one things years of comics have shown us, not killing the bad guys solve nothing.

No, that just shows us that the writers can't kill them or they'd run out of good villians and material. In a more controlled setting, you wouldn't have villians escaping every time the writer needs them for a good plot device. Comics doesn't = reality.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You run into slippery slope arguments there though.

I think the legal systems of such universes should be more willing to use the death penalty (though I'm usually opposed to that as well), but taking the law into your own hands sets a dangerous precedent. Fair trial, not vigilante justice, though I cautiously agree that killing isn't always a bad thing.

Agreed although if I were a comic book character and had telepathic powers I'd be on the fence with "forced mental rehabilitation."

Killing=Black Adam

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, that just shows us that the writers can't kill them or they'd run out of good villians and material. In a more controlled setting, you wouldn't have villians escaping every time the writer needs them for a good plot device. Comics doesn't = reality.

They have people who can smash the prison walls down with one hand. Whats so hard to believe they're able to escape.

Besides in the comic world they show them able to escape so they can do it regally and are always a danger.

They're world not ours.

Originally posted by willRules
Oh and what's a justifiable reason for murder? Killing one guilty to save countless innocents!

I'm sorry but there's just some times a hero needs to take a sin onto themselves for the greater good.

Some heroes understand that and thou they hate it they do what needs to be done.

Other heroes refuse to and countless innocent people will continue to die or just suffer needlessly for it.

As a pacifist I can not condone killing if this is a scenario where we are supposed to take their death's in a real world sense.

Originally posted by Newjak
As a pacifist I can not condone killing if this is a scenario where we are supposed to take their death's in a real world sense.

Explain real world sense.

How can we expand upon this? Is there shades of grey?

murder is despictable anyway you look at it, who are we to judge who deserves to live, and who deserves to die, we were all placed on this rock for a reason, and because our own mortality is short, we have no right to claim the life of another, despite their crimes, there are other forms of punishment, but murder and killing is absolotly inexcusable, and it's part of being a hero that shows restraint, and keeping balance of the law. If you ever noticed the Authority thinks they are above the law, and though many laws are questionable, the ones set in stone, keep society in check. So no, they shoudl never kill, unless it's some short hairy conuck that has been experimented on. And the fact that you think they should, really says alot about you AJ

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
murder is despictable anyway you look at it, who are we to judge who deserves to live, and who deserves to die, we were all placed on this rock for a reason, and because our own mortality is short, we have no right to claim the life of another, despite their crimes, there are other forms of punishment, but murder and killing is absolotly inexcusable, and it's part of being a hero that shows restraint, and keeping balance of the law. If you ever noticed the Authority thinks they are above the law, and though many laws are questionable, the ones set in stone, keep society in check. So no, they shoudl never kill, unless it's some short hairy conuck that has been experimented on. And the fact that you think they should, really says alot about you AJ AJ.



But explain to be how to deal with people who escape and murder regally?

well, if taken care of properly, they would never espace. I don't see Charles Manson, or Mr. Chapman roaming the streets, they'll never get parole, and never will. A true serial killer is mental as it is, and once caught, doesn't escape. Son of Sam. behind bars. So no, we don't justify murder. It's placing yoursef above other men, like your superior, when in reality we are all equals, despite the horrendous crimes they may commit. We don't live in Babylon where it's an eye for an eye.

In comics? I don't think superheroes should kill, but if they have to (ie if Speedball had killed Nitro before he'd blown up Stamford), then I don't think it should be held against them really.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
well, if taken care of properly, they would never espace. I don't see Charles Manson, or Mr. Chapman roaming the streets, they'll never get parole, and never will. A true serial killer is mental as it is, and once caught, doesn't escape. Son of Sam. behind bars. So no, we don't justify murder. It's placing yoursef above other men, like your superior, when in reality we are all equals, despite the horrendous crimes they may commit. We don't live in Babylon where it's an eye for an eye. Those people don't have the ablity to walk through walls, control minds, bend time, or blow up cities at will!

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
well, if taken care of properly, they would never espace. I don't see Charles Manson, or Mr. Chapman roaming the streets, they'll never get parole, and never will. A true serial killer is mental as it is, and once caught, doesn't escape. Son of Sam. behind bars. So no, we don't justify murder. It's placing yoursef above other men, like your superior, when in reality we are all equals, despite the horrendous crimes they may commit. We don't live in Babylon where it's an eye for an eye.

Yes but we are talking about the COMIC world will they do escape not in the REAL world.

Can't you tell the difference?

Originally posted by Entity
Those people don't have the ablity to walk through walls, control minds, bend time, or blow up cities at will!

Well let's face it, with all the villains in the world, you'd think cities would have been annihilated, there's a check and balance system in comics, and the act that the timely villains just can't die. No one will ever want to see Doom die, nor would they want to see the original F4 die, a true hero knows not to kill however, otherwise, you'd just be another Tony Stark haermm

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
Well let's face it, with all the villains in the world, you'd think cities would have been annihilated, there's a check and balance system in comics, and the act that the timely villains just can't die. No one will ever want to see Doom die, nor would they want to see the original F4 die, a true hero knows not to kill however, otherwise, you'd just be another Tony Stark haermm

But thats in real world Not comic which we happen to be talking about.

Read the thread more I think you should.

Originally posted by Switch 07
But thats in real world Not comic which we happen to be talking about.

Read the thread more I think you should. I read every post Aj, and I don't see any reason for a hero to kill any kind of villain, otherwise you'd be the sentry ipping carnage in half. It's more times that not, irrelevent, since death is a revolving door, especially in marvel.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
I read every post Aj, and I don't see any reason for a hero to kill any kind of villain, otherwise you'd be the sentry ipping carnage in half. It's more times that not, irrelevent, since death is a revolving door, especially in marvel.

Out of all the villains that die, how many more STAY dead.

Besides with all the villains dying what is the likelihood of loads coming back.

Is killing millions enough reason? I think so.

Say what you want about Stark but he's doing what he believes needs to be done and he's will to make himself the devil for it.

He may be an ass right now but there's a form of heroic all in its own in that I believe.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Out of all the villains that die, how many more STAY dead.

Besides with all the villains dying what is the likelihood of loads coming back.

Is killing millions enough reason? I think so.

superheroes are not executioners mac.

Meh. I don't think all comic villains deserve to die, but I think that there are some who certainly should. I think, if this was a real world, where people like Joker, Magneto and Doom run amok, killing who they please, I doubt that many people would feel remorse after their deaths. Not neccessarily putting them on the electric chair, but if a hero kills them, not something to cry about... if we had as many Hitler-level villains as exist in comics... people would feel less sorry for one of them being put down.

When Wonder Woman killed Max Lord, when Ult. Xavier seemed to finally deal with Ult. Mags, if Rorschach, Doc Manhattan or Nite Owl had taken down Ozymandias before he executed his plan, I didn't and wouldn't place any blame on them.

That being said, I don't think Spidey should execute Rhino in their next fight.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Explain real world sense.

How can we expand upon this? Is there shades of grey?

By real world sense I mean that I am not just treating these people as characters in a story but rather as real life breathing entities.

I can not believe there are shade's of grey.

I don't think killing someone is right for whatever reason.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
superheroes are not executioners mac.

But they should be to do whats best for the people they protect.

Originally posted by Newjak
By real world sense I mean that I am not just treating these people as characters in a story but rather as real life breathing entities.

I can not believe there are shade's of grey.

I don't think killing someone is right for whatever reason.

A question, what would you do with Hitler if he wa super powerful and only you had the power to stop him. And he will go killing everyone across the planet?

Not trying to prove a point just interested.

Originally posted by Entity
Killing one guilty to save countless innocents!

I'm sorry but there's just some times a hero needs to take a sin onto themselves for the greater good.

Some heroes understand that and thou they hate it they do what needs to be done.

Other heroes refuse to and countless innocent people will continue to die or just suffer needlessly for it.


Ok, lets say someone murders someone, to stop them from murdering, then who is the murderer? the guy who you call a "hero"!!!!! By that logic they sound much more like the villain they are trying to stop.

But of course it's contradictory anyway If you were doing something because you were concerned about the greater good, if morality meant something to this hero, then they wouldn't kill. They consider morality/greater good important so they sin??? That's not only illogical it's hypocritical because in killing someone to uphold their morals, all they have truly sacrificed is their own sense of morality.

In other words, in this case "For the greater Good" just means "I can try and justify what I know to be morally wrong"


But that's just my opinion

Originally posted by willRules
Ok, lets say someone murders someone, to stop them from murdering, then who is the murderer? the guy who you call a "hero"!!!!! By that logic they sound much more like the villain they are trying to stop.

But of course it's contradictory anyway If you were doing something because you were concerned about the greater good, if morality meant something to this hero, then they wouldn't kill. They consider morality/greater good important so they sin??? That's not only illogical it's hypocritical because in killing someone to uphold their morals, all they have truly sacrificed is their own sense of morality.

In other words, in this case "For the greater Good" just means "I can try and justify what I know to be morally wrong"


But that's just my opinion

Morally wrong or not its for the greater good.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Morally wrong or not its for the greater good.

THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

Originally posted by willRules
THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

Yes, it does.

If I had to one person to save two, I would.

It's morally wrong, but for the greater good.

The lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Citizen V
Yes, it does.

If I had to one person to save two, I would.

It's morally wrong, but for the greater good.

The lesser of two evils.

If you had to what?

Originally posted by llagrok
If you had to what?

co-sign ~haerrm~

Originally posted by llagrok
If you had to what?



Discombobulate.

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
A true serial killer is mental as it is, and once caught, doesn't escape. So ted Bundy wasn't a true serial killer?

Tell that to the women in Florida he killed after he escaped custody in Colorado.

He didn't escape a second time cause he's dead.

Berkowitz requested no parole because he found religion in prison. We can't expect every criminal to do the same though can we?

Gacy didn't escape because he was executed.
Fish also didn't escape cause he was executed.
Gaskins? executed
Burke? executed
Shankur? executed
Kudzinowski? executed
Etc.

Guess how many people the executed serial killers killed after they themselves were? 0
Bundy killed five after he was locked up. zero after his execution.

Originally posted by Citizen V
Yes, it does.

If I had to one person to save two, I would.

It's morally wrong, but for the greater good.

The lesser of two evils.

Hey, I can empathise with it but it still makes no sense

wrong = greater good. That's not truly the greater good unless you take the greater good, water it down and punch it like a cheap prostitute. That's a cheap imitation of "the greater good"

Originally posted by willRules
Hey, I can empathise with it but it still makes no sense

wrong = greater good. That's not truly the greater good unless you take the greater good, water it down and punch it like a cheap prostitute. That's a cheap imitation of "the greater good" Guy kills 31, and will probably keep killing if he himself is not killed. Do you allow him to be killed?

If you answer no he kills 5 more. If you answer yes his killing spree ends permenantly.

What choice would you make?

I like seeing heroes die, not that big a fan of villains dying. At least not unless they've done something real big.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Guy kills 31, and will probably keep killing if he himself is not killed. Do you allow him to be killed?

If you answer no he kills 5 more. If you answer yes his killing spree ends permenantly.

What choice would you make?

I don't know. I can't justify murder but at the same time I want to minimize the number of deaths. All I can do is pray for another solution to the circumstances I never said the choices were easy, all I'm saying is that murder is always wrong even if it seems like the rigth thing to do. Maybe in the situation you presented there is no right answer, only two wrong ones

Originally posted by willRules
I don't know. I can't justify murder but at the same time I want to minimize the number of deaths. All I can do is pray for another solution to the circumstances I never said the choices were easy, all I'm saying is that murder is always wrong even if it seems like the rigth thing to do. Maybe in the situation you presented there is no right answer, only two wrong ones The situation I presented happened. That was Ted Bundy. His first trial he was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 4 college girls and a 12 year old girl. They caught him again and this time sentenced him to death. He hasn't killed since.

Originally posted by Creshosk
The situation I presented happened. That was Ted Bundy. His first trial he was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 4 college girls and a 12 year old girl. They caught him again and this time sentenced him to death. He hasn't killed since.

Well it's kinda hard to kill people once you've been killed yourself

Originally posted by willRules
Well it's kinda hard to kill people once you've been killed yourself Think on that for a moment.

That's the essence of this thread. The villians whom are killed, cannot kill again, until they're brought back.

The question then becomes, is killing a person to protect people as bad as killing a person for fun?

I think killing a person is wrong. Full stop.

Go black adam !!!!!! as long as teh real evil ppl die i am happy!

i hope they find that b*tch osama and kill him!

<3 killing

Originally posted by batdude123
It's funny how you quoted an American president.

Extremely.

I'm for it. Sorry if I had to kill one serial killing maniac to save several innocents I would do it in a hear beat. I probably wouldn't have a problem sleeping that night either.

I'm surprised at how many here are in favour of killing. I share a message board with a bunch of psychopaths

No, it just means that not everyone on here is as naive as you are.

Originally posted by Citizen V
No, it just means that not everyone on here is as naive as you are.

Oh Ok, sure..........


























note to self, Citizen V is a psycho fear

Originally posted by willRules
Oh Ok, sure..........


























note to self, Citizen V is a psycho fear

You've only just figured that out now? haermm.

Note to willRules... don't read 'The Authority.' ermm

fear


http://youtube.com/watch?v=sdrDpELNbks

Originally posted by batdude123
Note to willRules... don't read 'The Authority.' ermm

I've read it, I thought it was a really good read for the first couple of arcs, then I got a little bored

Originally posted by willRules
I think killing a person is wrong. Full stop. I think that allowing innocent people to be killed because of personal taste is wrong.

Originally posted by willRules
I'm surprised at how many here are in favour of killing. I share a message board with a bunch of psychopaths

lal

Originally posted by Switch 07
What is your stance on the heroes killing in comics?

I am VERY for it. Solves problems. Makes the villains gone for good. Prevents murder etc.

If Superman was willing to kill all his villains the world will be much safer. Same with everyone.

Killing = . I think they should have one person on a team, that's willing to rip people in half...

Originally posted by Bransolute
I think they should have one person on a team, that's willing to rip people in half... That's why Wolverine is on every team.

ive said this plenty of times...sometimes even i the exact same words but im not for heroes developing a penchant for needless killing. but some folks need to get to put down. joker is the most operative examplr of this. he was tried in front of a jury of his peers many a times.. also during that whole black mask fiasco a couple years ago, when they finally cuaght joker again when they were taking him in he turned to the camera and apologized for having such a low body count, and next time he promised to do better

we can bang out all the cliches about villains all we want like .........thats what separates us from them......we'll be no better than they are.......there's always another way, etc, but that solves nothing...all that breeds is self righteous indignation, and sheer arrogance like superman for example. sometimes it almost seems like he's trying to give his enemies a fair shot at defeating him... cuz when he does this and make his comeback it makes him look like a better hero, and thats what he craves

and i know this is the part where ppl usually say that if he does everything at superspeed his comics would be boring but still, he seems to consciously leav an opening for ppl to attack him, and also he sees killing in black and white..very much like Batman does, though to a lesser extent.for example in his recent comic, he was eager to learn about his krptonian heritage but when he learned that she had to kill a few ppl to survive persecution he had the audacity to get on his f ****ing high horse and tell that he cant just "let her go" cuz she might kill again... when she blurted out whhaatt? that was my reaction also, cuz im like where the **** does he get off
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p105/Manjaro_/whhaat.jpg

What responsibility do you share for allowing a serial killer to kill again?

The difference between us and them is we put the gun down and go home, the serial killer doesn't. That's the difference between us and them.

Do you kill dracula? Stake him through the heart or do you chain his coffin up and hope he doesn't get out? Hope that a fire doesn't destroy the coffin, that the chains don't rust?

How many innocent people would you allow to die before you said no more? Or will you always allow them to kill more and more people?

Knowing that if not for your distaste of killing those people would still be alive? How would you be able to sleep at night knowing that you allowed all those people to die?

im more for killing heroes then heroes killing

Kinda like captain america

But if you keep killing all the villains, you'll run out of villains and have to keep making new ones.

Once they start who would stop them? Doesn't matter what we think.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
But if you keep killing all the villains, you'll run out of villains and have to keep making new ones. Your mixing comic book superhero blurred perception with real people. Not everyone turns into Kingdom Come Gog looking for people to kill. there is no "Once there all dead". Serial killers will always exist.

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Your mixing comic book superhero blurred perception with real people. Not everyone turns into Kingdom Come Gog looking for people to kill. there is no "Once there all dead". Serial killers will always exist.

Which is why the population has to be brain washed into docility

Docility?! Docility?!?!?!

Is that a word?

No really...I'm curious.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
But if you keep killing all the villains, you'll run out of villains and have to keep making new ones.
This is comic books here. They would just come back to life.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Docility?! Docility?!?!?!

Is that a word?

No really...I'm curious.



Well it sounds like "docile" and it doesn't set off my spellchecker. I think it's the noun of docile or something.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/docility

Digi is not ready for Mensa.

Originally posted by Validus
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/docility

Digi is not ready for Mensa.

hmm Not exactly what I thought it meant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm Not exactly what I thought it meant.
You're supposed to google words you're unsure of before using them in a post.

Originally posted by Validus
You're supposed to google words you're unsure of before using them in a post.

I wasn't unsure though.

nvm I was looking at the defnition of docile not docility

Indeed. He was just wrong.

Originally posted by Switch 07
A question, what would you do with Hitler if he wa super powerful and only you had the power to stop him. And he will go killing everyone across the planet?

Not trying to prove a point just interested. I would stop him and fight him.

I'm not saying to let people do wrong things but I can not take their life or ask others to take life.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would stop him and fight him.

I'm not saying to let people do wrong things but I can not take their life or ask others to take life. Good for you Gandhi , let me know how that works for you if your family or friends become lambs to wolves that should have been put down a while ago.



Not trying to sound mean, I just see no way a person could not agree to this without sounding naive.

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
Good for you Gandhi , let me know how that works for you if your family or friends become lambs to wolves that should have been put down a while ago.



Not trying to sound mean, I just see no way a person could not agree to this without sounding completely naive. Than I would be mad but I would hope I am strong enough not to go across that line.

Some people call it being naive others call it not crossing that line.

Originally posted by Newjak
Than I would be mad but I would hope I am strong enough not to go across that line.

Some people call it being naive others call it not crossing that line. I understand the nobility of that line I just know enough about my self to know I would cross it and probably kick dirt over it to protect someone I loved.

Originally posted by Newjak
Than I would be mad but I would hope I am strong enough not to go across that line.

Some people call it being naive others call it not crossing that line. Who would you rather live, and who would you rather have die?

A serial killer or the victims they'll kill if they're allowed to live?

Would it make a difference if the victims were strangers? What about friends? How about family? What about your significant other?

Where do you draw the line that says enough is enough? 10 people later? 20? how about 50? 100?

All for the sake of preserving one life that doesn't have the same respect for life as you? You respect lifre so much you'd rather multiple innocent people die than the serial killers who kill them?

We could always just mentally vegetate every villian...we don't cross the major line then.

This next thing is completely off topic but this thread got me thinking...you know that situation where you have a choice to either save 1 person you know or 50 people you don't know...I just realized that I'd choose the one person I know. And I doubt I'd regret it too.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Who would you rather live, and who would you rather have die?

A serial killer or the victims they'll kill if they're allowed to live?

Would it make a difference if the victims were strangers? What about friends? How about family? What about your significant other?

Where do you draw the line that says enough is enough? 10 people later? 20? how about 50? 100?

All for the sake of preserving one life that doesn't have the same respect for life as you? You respect lifre so much you'd rather multiple innocent people die than the serial killers who kill them? Exactly where can I draw the line.

To take a life is to take a life no matter what that person has done or who the person is.

Here is a question for you would you take the life of your brother if he were the serial killer and was going to kill again?

Would you take the life of your mother if you found out she had been killing for years and would kill again?


But let's clear something up I would stop the killer at all costs to myself trying to protect anybody but if I beat the person I could not take their life.

Originally posted by Newjak
Exactly where can I draw the line.

To take a life is to take a life no matter what that person has done or who the person is.

Here is a question for you would you take the life of your brother if he were the serial killer and was going to kill again?

Would you take the life of your mother if you found out she had been killing for years and would kill again?


But let's clear something up I would stop the killer at all costs to myself trying to protect anybody but if I beat the person I could not take their life.

Totally agree with you. But we gonna get branded as naive because of it

Although I'd rather be called naive and not kill people than try and justify someones murder

Originally posted by Newjak
Exactly where can I draw the line.

To take a life is to take a life no matter what that person has done or who the person is.

Here is a question for you would you take the life of your brother if he were the serial killer and was going to kill again?

Would you take the life of your mother if you found out she had been killing for years and would kill again?


But let's clear something up I would stop the killer at all costs to myself trying to protect anybody but if I beat the person I could not take their life.

Yes.

Yes.

I would rather kill than let someone else be killed.

Originally posted by Citizen V
Yes.

Yes.

I would rather kill than let someone else be killed.

My post still stands.....

Originally posted by willRules
fear


http://youtube.com/watch?v=sdrDpELNbks

Originally posted by willRules
My post still stands.....

As does mine.

Originally posted by Citizen V
No, it just means that not everyone on here is as naive as you are.

Oh OK, hows about we settle with; I'm a naive, immature child and you are a murderous psychopath, devoid of morality?

Gosh that statement's sooo bland it sounds like a Jeph Leob comic! fear

Originally posted by willRules
Oh OK, hows about we settle with; I'm a naive, immature child and you are a murderous psychopath, devoid of morality?

Gosh that statement's sooo bland it sounds like a Jeph Leob comic! fear

I agree with V on the naive thing.

I also think its kind of selfish to just let people get killed to reserve your morals.

I would kill a murderer.... I'd probably rape him too

Originally posted by Blight
I would kill a murderer.... I'd probably rape him too
...

You know it.... I know it...

Originally posted by Blight
I would kill a murderer.... I'd probably rape him too

*High Five*

Originally posted by Blight
I would kill a murderer.... I'd probably rape him too

even if they don't buy you dinner and a movie first?

Originally posted by Capt Spaulding
even if they don't buy you dinner and a movie first? I'd do it in a limo.

Originally posted by Blight
I'd do it in a limo.

Originally posted by Blight
I'd do it in a limo.

let the driver watch sly

Surprisingly... we didn't close the driver window

Originally posted by Blight
Surprisingly... we didn't close the driver window
his wind shield wipers were on overdrive haermm

Originally posted by Citizen V
I would rather kill than let someone else be killed.

You'd rather kill someone than let someone else do it?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'd rather kill someone than let someone else do it?

Who wouldn't want first dibs?



I think he was trying hard not to watch

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'd rather kill someone than let someone else do it?

No, if I knew a murderer was going to kill someone, I would kill them before they could kill said someone.

What if said someone was, indeed, a murderer?

Originally posted by Blight
What if said someone was, indeed, a murderer?

So if a murderer was going to kill another murderer?

Or if a normal person was going to kill a murderer?

Either way, I'd let the person kill the murderer, and then (if they were a murderer aswell) I'd kill them.

Never again will I use the word murderer so many times in one post.

Originally posted by Citizen V
No, if I knew a murderer was going to kill someone, I would kill them before they could kill said someone.

Then another equally moral person would kill you before you committed that murder.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then another equally moral person would kill you before you committed that murder.

Look up the legal definition of murder. Defending yourself or another is not murder.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then another equally moral person would kill you before you committed that murder.

But it wouldn't be murder, if you're doing it to prevent him from killing somebody else it would be "Self Defence".

Atleast it would be in my country.

Originally posted by Citizen V
But it wouldn't be murder, if you're doing it to prevent him from killing somebody else it would be "Self Defence".

Atleast it would be in my country.


Self Defense of another person? Do you live in a schitzo country?

Originally posted by Soljer
Look up the legal definition of murder. Defending yourself or another is not murder. Only if you stop said person in the act of actually killing someone.

If you go into that person's home before the act has been or is being committed you would be tried for murder.

All for Death Penalty.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

FRY THE BASTARDS !

Originally posted by Newjak
Only if you stop said person in the act of actually killing someone.

If you go into that person's home before the act has been or is being committed you would be tried for murder.

Who said I'd commit homicide with malice and forethought?

I was just pointing out that justifiable homicide is a very real thing, and it includes, killing someone to protect yourself, or another, from murder, assault, and sexual assault.

Originally posted by Newjak
Exactly where can I draw the line.

To take a life is to take a life no matter what that person has done or who the person is.

Here is a question for you would you take the life of your brother if he were the serial killer and was going to kill again?

Would you take the life of your mother if you found out she had been killing for years and would kill again?


But let's clear something up I would stop the killer at all costs to myself trying to protect anybody but if I beat the person I could not take their life. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, the serial killer's life is not more valuable than those of their victims.

There but for your vaunted morals 5 lives were lost in the Bundy case. He was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 5 more. His life was worth those 5 others? His life was more valuable than any one of thoe that he killed? His 36 victims each of their lives together was not as valuable as his?

And willrules says we're the ones devoid of morality. To say that a single man's life is more valuable than those of his victims. Even indriectly as the two of you are stating it.

He killed 31 people. But his life was spared. He escaped and killed 5 more people.

Ted Bundy>his 36 victims.

Originally posted by grey fox
All for Death Penalty.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

FRY THE BASTARDS !

Not to sound like a hippy, but the quote 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' really does apply.

I kill you, so your family kills me, so my family kills your family, so your family's friends kill my family, so my family's friends kills your family's friends, so....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Self Defense of another person? Do you live in a schitzo country?

Yeah, we do.

Britains legal system is all over the F*cking place, it's disgusting.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Self Defense of another person? Do you live in a schitzo country?

I know, hence the quote marks.

It'd probably be "Defence of another" or some shizzle.

Originally posted by Newjak
Only if you stop said person in the act of actually killing someone.

If you go into that person's home before the act has been or is being committed you would be tried for murder.

What if there was sufficient proof that they were planning to? .

Edit: And had before.

Originally posted by Soljer
Not to sound like a hippy, but the quote 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' really does apply.

I kill you, so your family kills me, so my family kills your family, so your family's friends kill my family, so my family's friends kills your family's friends, so....

You get my point however.

You kill (illegally) , you fry.

Simple

Originally posted by Citizen V



What if there was sufficient proof that they were planning to? .

Edit: And had before.

Doesn't matter. You would have committed premeditated murder.

Originally posted by grey fox
You get my point however.

You kill (illegally) , you fry.

Simple

Yeah, I get your point, and I agree. But I think using that quote in particular as a 'banner' for the idea is...well...not applicable. .

Originally posted by Creshosk
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, the serial killer's life is not more valuable than those of their victims.

There but for your vaunted morals 5 lives were lost in the Bundy case. He was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 5 more. His life was worth those 5 others? His life was more valuable than any one of thoe that he killed? His 36 victims each of their lives together was not as valuable as his?

And willrules says we're the ones devoid of morality. To say that a single man's life is more valuable than those of his victims. Even indriectly as the two of you are stating it.

He killed 31 people. But his life was spared. He escaped and killed 5 more people.

Ted Bundy>his 36 victims.

How coldly Machiavellian of you

Originally posted by Creshosk
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, the serial killer's life is not more valuable than those of their victims.

There but for your vaunted morals 5 lives were lost in the Bundy case. He was sentenced to imprisonment. He escaped and killed 5 more. His life was worth those 5 others? His life was more valuable than any one of thoe that he killed? His 36 victims each of their lives together was not as valuable as his?

And willrules says we're the ones devoid of morality. To say that a single man's life is more valuable than those of his victims. Even indriectly as the two of you are stating it.

He killed 31 people. But his life was spared. He escaped and killed 5 more people.

Ted Bundy>his 36 victims.

People are not responsible for the actions of other people only the actions they themselves commit.

Like I said if killing a murderer was so important to you would you kill your mother to prevent her from killing someone else?


Originally posted by Citizen V
I know, hence the quote marks.

It'd probably be "Defence of another" or some shizzle.



What if there was sufficient proof that they were planning to? .

Edit: And had before. Then your expected to turn that person over to the proper authorities to handle it.

Not take it into your own hands.

Originally posted by Newjak
People are not responsible for the actions of other people only the actions they themselves commit.

Like I said if killing a murderer was so important to you would you kill your mother to prevent her from killing someone else?


Then your expected to turn that over to the proper authorities to handle it.

Personal matters should not be considered. Your never yourself when those things happen.

Originally posted by Soljer
Doesn't matter. You would have committed premeditated murder.

And as I said before, I'd rather kill someone I knew was going to muder somebody than allow them to do so and have an innocent life on my conscience.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How coldly Machiavellian of you

Maybe so, but IMO he's right.

Originally posted by Newjak
People are not responsible for the actions of other people only the actions they themselves commit.

Like I said if killing a murderer was so important to you would you kill your mother to prevent her from killing someone else?


Then your expected to turn that person over to the proper authorities to handle it.

Not take it into your own hands.

And if you didn't have time to? If it were kill or let someone be killed? what would you do?

Originally posted by Citizen V
Maybe so, but IMO he's right.

It breaks down when human nature comes into play.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Personal matters should not be considered. Your never yourself when those things happen. If personal matters are not to be considered why have they been brought up.

All that matters is if you are killing someone because you think them killing other people are wrong then you should also be expected to be killed by the same reason. You will obviously go and kill more people.

Originally posted by Citizen V
And as I said before, I'd rather kill someone I knew was going to muder somebody than allow them to do so and have an innocent life on my conscience.



Maybe so, but IMO he's right.



And if you didn't have time to? If it were kill or let someone be killed? what would you do? I would stop them, not kill them, stop them or at the very least give them a new target to go after, myself.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would stop them, not kill them, stop them or at the very least give them a new target to go after, myself. Get rid of all those options then what?

Originally posted by Citizen V
And as I said before, I'd rather kill someone I knew was going to muder somebody than allow them to do so and have an innocent life on my conscience.


So report your evidence to the authorities, or perform a citizen's arrest. Doesn't mean you have to kill them. If they attempt to kill you while you're in the process of restraining them - well, then it's all about self defense.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Get rid of all those options then what? How can you get rid of all those options?

If get rid of those my only option is to what kill him because if you can kill someone you can obviously stop them without killing them.

Originally posted by Newjak
How can you get rid of all those options?

If get rid of those my only option is to what kill him because if you can kill someone you can obviously stop them without killing them. So you would kill.

I'm happy.

Originally posted by Switch 07
So you would kill.

I'm happy. No I wouldn't

I said if you can kill someone then obviously you would be able to stop them without killing them

Originally posted by Newjak
No I wouldn't

I said if you can kill someone then obviously you would be able to stop them without killing them


Damn you to hell.

Originally posted by Switch 07
Damn you to hell. Too late I'm already talking to you

Originally posted by Newjak
Too late I'm already talking to you

...

I concede.

Originally posted by Switch 07
...

I concede.

No I concede

Originally posted by Newjak
No I concede


I concede more by not responding.



.....

Shit!!!

Originally posted by Switch 07
I concede more by not responding.



.....

Shit!!!

Newjak for the WIN!!!!!!!!!


Causing people to PWN themselves since 2005

Originally posted by Newjak
Newjak for the WIN!!!!!!!!!


Causing people to PWN themselves since 2005