Justified Murder: The Thread!

[SoulDischarge]

We need some fresh controversy. What I want to know is: according to your personal moral code, under what circumstances is killing another human being acceptable?

[Sleepingrock]

Euthanasia if the person having it done wants it done

Your body, your call.... unless your "depressed" I mean if you have a terminal illness


OR if you are a celebrity, if you're famous you can do all you want!

[MissingPerson]

When I was in the army reserve, we were permitted to fire on somebody in defense of our lives, comrades, mission or weapon.

I think I'm still okay with the first two of those in certain extraordinary circumstances.

[psycobetabuckdown]

When I was in the army reserve, we were permitted to fire on somebody in defense of our lives, comrades, mission or weapon.

I think I'm still okay with the first two of those in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Assuming your mission is a good one and theirs is bad, I'd think that would be ok. The weapon thing is a no-brainer, isn't it?

[psycobetabuckdown]

Only if that person is putting your life at risk. This includes various forms of organized war.

[HandBanana]

If they host a popular program on the Fox news network.

[MissingPerson]

Assuming your mission is a good one and theirs is bad, I'd think that would be ok. The weapon thing is a no-brainer, isn't it?

I don't know. Depends, I guess.

Say it's an empty gun, for instance, the code still allows for that. For the early stages of training, you'd be running around with a dry rifle anyway, but you were still permitted to kill in it's defence. Which seems weird to me, but I can see the reasoning.

It presents no immediate threat to anybody, but it's potential for later harm to others is immense. So you'd have to weigh the prospect of quite certainly killing somebody now against the abstract possibility of killing somebody later.

It used to be a very present problem back when the IRA were more active, which is why it's there in the code right from the start. One gun could make the difference between a single funeral or a massacre.

Anyway, I'm glad I'll never have to make the call.

[JustSteve]

It used to be a very present problem back when the IRA were more active, which is why it's there in the code right from the start. One gun could make the difference between a single funeral or a massacre.

oh man, i did the black taxi tour of belfast when i was in ireland and there was a bar up there that had a cage outside the front door and cameras on every corner pointing towards it. don't recall if it was ira or uff, but one group had entered the bar before those security measures were there and opened fire on the crowd with fully automatic weapons. just insane.

[psycobetabuckdown]

But also if someone sees you without a weapon, you're more vulnerable whether it's loaded or not, right? That can mean life or death.

[SoulDischarge]

Also, what are people's opinions on the death penalty? If you support it, for what kind of offenders?

[humanoid]

Also, what are people's opinions on the death penalty? If you support it, for what kind of offenders?

I support it in certain cases. Of course I am slightly uneasy with giving the state the right to kill, but when someone is overwhelmingly guilty of a heinous crime, I don't see reason to keep them alive. There are inherent issues with how it is applied, but like I said, certain cases.

example....Richard Ramirez....sick fuck terrorized California for over a year. Often sneaking into peoples' homes while they slept and murdering them, sometimes raping them....he climbed into a 79 year old woman's window and raped her, stabbed her repeatedly and almost decapitated her while slashing her throat. That was only his first known murder. He followed with many more just as vicious.

he was found guilty of 13 murders, 5 attempted murders and 11 sexual assaults and is suspected in more cases

I see no reason why this guy needs to live

[Somewhat Damaged]

I support it in certain cases. Of course I am slightly uneasy with giving the state the right to kill, but when someone is overwhelmingly guilty of a heinous crime, I don't see reason to keep them alive. There are inherent issues with how it is applied, but like I said, certain cases.

example....Richard Ramirez....sick fuck terrorized California for over a year. Often sneaking into peoples' homes while they slept and murdering them, sometimes raping them....he climbed into a 79 year old woman's window and raped her, stabbed her repeatedly and almost decapitated her while slashing her throat. That was only his first known murder. He followed with many more just as vicious.

he was found guilty of 13 murders, 5 attempted murders and 11 sexual assaults and is suspected in more cases

I see no reason why this guy needs to live

Yup. This was pretty much my argument on another board a decade ago. This one guy argued that whole "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" hokum but let's see it as a preventative measure. Ted Bundy, for instance, wasn't going to be rehabilitated and he escaped prison once & went on to kill a few more women. Executing him insured that he never again had an opportunity to kill anybody else.

I would also agree that child molesters and rapists, in some instances, deserve execution. At the very least castration. Especially as it's been empirically proven that pederasts can't be rehabilitated (just like people with anti-social personality disorder). The potential for them to commit that crime again is too great to permit them to live.

[Hannahrain]

Also, what are people's opinions on the death penalty? If you support it, for what kind of offenders?

Execution and life in prison should be the same sentence, with the convict selecting one at the point of sentencing. If they choose life, they should be able to opt-out and choose the death penalty in the future if they want.

[Young blood]

If everyone wasn't so fucking so uptight I would be killing people left and right.

[fatbastard]

Execution and life in prison should be the same sentence, with the convict selecting one at the point of sentencing. If they choose life, they should be able to opt-out and choose the death penalty in the future if they want.

I would support a prison lottery in which inmates could sign up for a lottery that would either be freedom or amputation. People who had only their fingers, toes, hands, and wrists cut off would agree to be killed if they lost.

[MissingPerson]

I absolutely oppose the death penalty.

[psycobetabuckdown]

I do not support the death penalty. I am pro-life and so should everyone else be, including conservatives who call themselves pro-life.

[TommyboyUNM]

I am pro-life and so should everyone else be...

Where's your sense of adventure?

[boarderwoozel3]

I'm for it. Some people need to be removed from society & existence asap. Pretty much anyone who would be sentenced for life without the chance of parole. At that point you've done something worthy of death in my eyes. Rot in a cell on my dollar for something you did? Methinks not. And if death isn't applicable or accepted, up the work programs and get more hard labor out of them.

[TomAz]

Some people need to be removed from society & existence asap.

Rot in a cell on my dollar for something you did? Methinks not.

[rskapcat]

The appeals process costs taxpayers a lot of money...more than keeping them alive in prison.

[psycobetabuckdown]

I've always heard that it costs much more to kill the inmates, court costs and such. What is this "removed from existence" shit you're spewing? Society, maybe. Existence, wtf? Jail is enough.

[BlackSwan]

What I want to know is: according to your personal moral code, under what circumstances is killing another human being acceptable?

It is definitely a case-by-case kind of decision, but I would consider anyone who has intentionally killed an innocent person a candidate for being murdered. Feel free to offer examples for me to decide on.

Also, what are people's opinions on the death penalty? If you support it, for what kind of offenders?

I definitely support it for murderers--possibly child molesters and rapists.

EDIT: In terms of the method I like boarder's labor camp idea.

[JustSteve]

I definitely support it for murderers--possibly child molesters and rapists

prison justice is nice and swift for child molesters, at least we save a buck or two on them.

[BlackSwan]

Actually now that I think about it some sort of Gladiator competition for violent criminals would be entertaining and effective.

[obzen]

[boarderwoozel3]

EDIT: In terms of the method I like boarder's labor camp idea.

Credit to Sir Thomas Moore. I tweaked his version from Utopia and the idea that common criminals should earn their way back into society and given the tools necessary to not have to rely on crime as a means for survival. Don't recall what he said about capitol punishment although I'm pretty sure he was against it on the grounds that in his utopian society there would be no need for killing, hence, no need for capital punishment. But killing people for stealing bread? Madness. Ironically, these ideas and Utopia got him beheaded for dissent against the crown.

[fatbastard]

Pay states bonuses to kill people on death row.

[wmgaretjax]

I would kill someone that wanted to die... Euthanasia...

I don't think I could do it besides that though... It's impossible to try and hypothesize what I would do in an extreme situation though.

[JustSteve]

We need some fresh controversy. What I want to know is: according to your personal moral code, under what circumstances is killing another human being acceptable?

you do something deplorable to one of my children.