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 NewjakThe needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, the serial killer's life is not more valuable than those of their victims.
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.
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
🤨 [b]Self Defense of another person? Do you live in a schitzo country? [/B]
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 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 VThen your expected to turn that person over to the proper authorities to handle it.
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.
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 Switch 07If personal matters are not to be considered why have they been brought up.
Personal matters should not be considered. Your never yourself when those things happen.
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 VI would stop them, not kill them, stop them or at the very least give them a new target to go after, myself.
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?
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.