Morality Question - Is murder ever justified?

[The Blackangel]

I'm not talking about justifiable homicide like a cop or bounty hunter would face. This is amongst civilians. What I'm referring to is killing someone when you're not in personal danger for something they have done. The movie A Time To Kill is a great example of this. If someone was to rape a female family member (especially your daughter) do you think killing them is the right thing to do? If someone breaks into your house, do you have the right to kill them?

In my opinion the answer to all these questions is a firm YES. I have actually gone on the record with the cops that if someone breaks into my house I will intentionally kill them. I will open fire and keep shooting until I know for a fact that they are dead. I will probably fire an extra round or two just to make sure they are dead. I don't have kids, but if someone was to attack my daughter I would torture them to death. Slowly and as painful as I could make it. People like that deserve to die. They have no business being alive.

 

What about you? Do you think it's ever justified to commit a murder as a civilian?

[Shagger]

If were talking about murder by if's definition:

 

 

Then the answer is easy. No. And I'm not even open to debate on it and feel no need to explain myself further, it's just no.

 

If somebody is posing an immediate and certain threat to your life or the life of somebody under you protection, than yes, I can understand taking a life and wouldn't condemn somebody for doing so, but it really shouldn't be considered right either. Even then if the option is there to end them as a threat without inflicting mortal injury that would be more appropriate, but that isn't the reason why I believe it shouldn't be justified. My reasoning is complicated and will take some explaining, so I beg your patience.

 

Before I get started though, I do want to say I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement "Police killing people is justified". Taking of a life should only be an absolute last resort is never more true of anyone than law enforcement, who sadly have a habit of not being held accountable for needlessly taking other peoples lives. Thier murder isn't justified, it's a consequence of thier own failure. They more than anyone should be exploring every other option to the point of exhaustion before they take a life. Bounty hunters are even worse, they're take lives for money and that is never a good reason.

 

To the main event, though. Life is sacred and has value beyond anything material. Some deserve that gift more than others, but that doesn't lift anyone high enough to the point whare they have a right to decide who deserves to keep that gift and who should have it taken from them. The big reason why killing in self defence is forgivable by law in America is because American law and policy, especially around gun control, has made it far too dangerous for people not to have it forgivable. No police offer is faster than a bullet, so it has to be that way. But think about it, would it have to be that way if civilians in America weren't allowed to have guns, or at the very least not allowed to carry them around the streets? I know that it's perfectly possible for somebody to kill somebody else without a gun, it's a tool that's only as dangerous as the person carrying it, I truly understand that, but that is very problem in the US because far too many of the wrong people there can get thier hands on one of these tools far too easily. The individual is the danger to life, but that individual is far more dangerous with a weapon like a gun that he/she is with a knife or some other weapon. That's why I would never live in America, it's not safe for anyone not warded by that culture.

 

The rest of the world isn't exactly immune, though. Murder happens everywhere and it is not acceptable, but killing in self defence (or in defence of another), and like I said whilst I do understand and would never condemn it, is still a part of the problem. This feedback of the bad people being able to hurt us, so we the good people need to be able to hurt them back, only now the bad people have better tools to hurt us with, so now we need be hurt them the same, it's just a loop of aggression and mistrust that creates a bigger problem than it was ever meant to solve.

 

Possibly the biggest issue with this is that good and bad are matters of opinion and nothing more. You brought up rape in you OP and I don't think you'll find anyone who would disagree with you. Rapists are horrible people and the world would certainly be a better place without them, but there is and there will always be a capacity for somebody to say no, getting rid of them isn't the answer. That there are other, better ways to deal with it. And like it or not, they may even be right, but that's not the point. The point is as long as that capacity exists, I don't believe any human should be in a position whare they can decide who deserves the sacred gift of life who doesn't.

 

There are people who have taken that sacred right for themselves and just about all of them are counted as some of the most evil and dangerous people in history. We would all like to believe with that kind of power we wouldn't be a Joseph Stalin, or a Pol Pot or a Saddam Hussain or an Adolf Hitler, but these men were either corrupted to obtain that power or corrupted by that power with the results being same and I don't think any human being is invulnerable to it.

 

What I'm trying to say with all this is that the right to kill, regardless of how and why that right is administered, is destructive and dangerous. Not in that moment of choice whare the individual has to decide, but as a principle. A society that condones and justifies killing will always have "unjustified" killing as well. They go hand in hand together and can't be separated. Humans evolved from predators, violence is an inescapable part of our nature. Because of that, maybe we'll never break from that loop, but I am convinced that justifying killing, regardless of why, is at the very least slowing us down in our evolution away from violence.

 

Killing is wrong, no matter how or why somebody is doing it.

[killamch89]

Depends on the circumstance - in the case of protecting your loved ones from dangerous individuals because the law cannot, then I'd say yes. However, senselessly killing someone for pretty stupid reasons like someone accidentally stepping on your shoe is not justifiable.

[Reality vs Adventure]

I remember what that movie A Time To Kill is about but I forget the details. If there was a system in place protecting someone who raped and killed a child, trying to protect that person's reputation or simply because they are racist and see another person or child as unworthy of justice, then the rapist/killer would be free to do it again. Then I have to say that would be a time to seek vigilante justice.

But think about the case of Ahmaud Arbery's murder. Vigilantes pretty much made a false accusation, tried to make a citizen's arrest, held him at gun point as a captive, then killed him. A prosecutor refused to charge the men and she now faces charges too. And in the court room, the defendant's lawyer tried to get the jury to be more red neck. They even demonized Arbery's body saying he had dirty toenails as a reference to a slave. What if the system all got away with their obstruction and let those three men free? Would that be a time to kill? Should we discriminate and kill for a child but nor for a grown man???

If they get away with it, and the system gets away with it, then that issue becomes widespread and just plain corrupt. We need the system to be able to do its job and hold criminals accountable. If that fails, and the problem becomes larger, then what happens is a revolt. People will take justice in their own hands. Because that ends up being a threat to everyone who looks like that particular victim. This also can become a double edged sword if vigilantes take matters in their own hands because who is to say who is right? Rittenhouse went on a premeditated killing spree and others think he was a good vigilante for it. 

This also reminds me of the movie Braveheart where Wallace's secret wife was murdered in public for everyone to see. Imagine living under another's rule and having to share your wife to give her virginity to a tyrant? Wallace then revolts and the others revolt with him and kill the bastards. Usually a victim whose justice goes unanswered is a symptom of bigger problems. You may have vengeance in your heart for that one victim or a few victims, but look at the bigger picture of a failed system, and fucking revolt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kill the tyrants!!!!!! Just don't be a fake Rittenhouse vigilante where a corrupt judge let him free. Should the victim's parents or siblings seek vigilante justice, since the system failed them? Then what. What happens is two sides always thinking they are right and more and more people get killed. 

It's hard to answer that question because everyone is more sympathetic to the child and not to a grown man, even if both needs that justice. And if you are on the side of the minority, like in that movie A Time To Kill, and you seek your own justice, think about what happens next in that oppressive system. The oppressors will want revenge for the white man and kill innocent blacks who had nothing to do with it. Then they are forced into a revolt. That's how things work. On and on and on. There are always oppressors and the oppressed. Something like that child's murder shouldn't go unanswered. And what is probably even more affective than taking matters into your own hands is to get the whole community involved. If they get gunned down, then war it is. Or riots. 

We have seen modern day systemic oppression at work, or a modern day genocide of blacks by the police. And do they seek their own vigilante justice? They did what angry people do, who feels helpless, is riot. And that got attention. Did it change anything? Nope. But it did get public opinion and awareness. We now know the police need serious reform. And if the oppression of blacks and browns goes unanswered. Next time it will be more than a riot. That's just how things work when people can no longer take it. They revolt. 

And that is completely different from being a bunch of nazi fascists who try to overthrow an election. They are lying about a stolen election. Much different from blacks getting murdered by police and seeking justice and equality. Being a vigilante goes both ways, even the bad people and oppressors falsely seek justice. More like they use violence to scare people into oppression. That is the tactic for authoritarians. They will always play the victim, always use brutal force, always get you before you get them mentality, always protecting the system of oppression, label you a terrorist if you stand up, arrest you if you speak out, brutalize and kill you for protesting, take away your rights, all so they can abuse you and do things like rape and kill children because they believe they have the privilege to do it. 

Best thing I can say, is seek support from the public. Demand justice. Protest. Riot. Then revolt. 

[Kyng]

If someone was trying to rape a female family member, and the only way I could stop them would be by killing the would-be rapist... I would do it in a heartbeat. 

However, I do not believe that killing them would be a good thing to do, or even an okay thing to do. I just believe it would be a necessary thing to do. 

The defence rests entirely on the fact that it's the only way to stop an innocent person from coming to serious harm. If there was some other, non-lethal, means of achieving the same result, then I would be morally obliged to use the non-lethal means instead. A necessary evil, without the necessity, just becomes plain evil.

[NightmareFarm]

Im a christian so no.