lol, no, i was just kidding.

 

wow we have the same idea of torture

 

You should only be allowed to kill when someone steps on your blue suede shoes and steals your drugs.

 

WOW what a thread to make my first ever post on, but here goes.

When is it OK to kill?

First lets differentiate between murder and killing.

Murder is absolutely never OK. Those that would murder to avenge their murdered relatives are still murderers in the public eye and in the eyes of the law, rightfully so. I might not condone this action, but I would certainly understand it. I'm fairly sure if put to the task I might just muder in this case myself, and live with the ramifications if I did not get justice.

Killing is not murder. It is NOT OK to kill either though, not at least if you have the intent to kill.

Example: Your licensed to carry a concealed weapon, your walking down the street minding your own business when you are assaulted by 2 thugs. They knock you down and start kicking you mercilessly.
Clearly your life is in immediate perile, and you now have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary, and it is.
You draw your weapon and fire at your assailants hitting both of them, one mortally, and only severely wounding the other, but the attack is stopped. You did not intend to kill the one and not the other, you simply intended to stop the attack on your person. in the eyes of the law you are justified in using deadly force.
ey here is that the use of deadly force can ONLY be used to stop the attack, not to justify killing anyone.
Had you thought while you were drawing your weapon , "I'm going to kill these two F***ers." , and you expressed that to the cops, your in deep dodo.
In all self defense classes you are taught that once you draw your weapon, you shoot and try to make multiple hits on your adversary to stop them. This is a legal and accepted response to deadly force against you. Multiple hits are often necessary against a drugged up opponent.
Multiple hits also go a long way to ensure that there is only one side to this story. While you may be completely justified by the law and in no perile of facing a criminal trial, civil trials are a completely different matter.

It may not be pretty, you may all kinds of problems with this , but that's the way it is.

So to answer the question, technically it is never OK to kill, but for self defense there are measures in place to allow it. And lets face it, self defense of ones own life and family certainly, and perhaps even some elses life is not a right given by government, we are born with it.

Shit that was way longer and preachy than I intended. Sorry if it got to any of you all. Hot button topic for me for personal reasons.

Anyway, nice to meet you all.

 

It's okay to kill when you are the executioner at a death sentencing, If God speaks to you and tells you to lol, or if it's kill or be killed. Otherwise you have no reason or right to take another persons life.

 

Jim I've read lots of blogs and stories from people serving in Iraq that would contradict what you are saying here. But the two most common reasons I've ever heard of what soldiers were fighting for was one to stay alive and two because they were ordered to.

What difference does it make if it was 125,000 (the lowest estimate to date) or 600,000 (which most estimates believe to be correct). Its ludicrous to contend that we can save the Iraqi people by killing them.

I believe you are blinded by your own illusions Jim. One of which is how are we treating the soldiers? You imply that someone is treating them badly (on this thread I guess) and I was just wanting you to point out where that is.

Sounds like the final solution to me Perv.

No, the majority have been killed by other Iraqis, some by private contractors, and more than I would care to think by the US military.

This is absolutely not true.

But don't you see we haven't stopped there. If we had we would not have one of the highest murder rates in the world. Once one embraces the idea that its ok to kill then everyone gets to make up their own reasons.

What about the ones who are just following orders and dropping bombs or firing artillery into civilian areas. It happens all the time in wars and Iraq is no different.

Again once we and our society embraces killing then it certainly won't stop. But how can killing someone else and then yourself benefit your family. It won't but it does put on par with the orginal killer who also thought he was justified in killing someone.

Your idea of self defense would not hold up in several states.

Thats the problem with the death penalty in general is it says that its ok to kill someone as long as you have a good enough reason. Thats why there are so many different reasons and so many killings in this country. And since there is a statistical chance the person the executioner is killing is innocent is it still OK for him to kill an innocent person?

And you sure are kidding about God telling people its OK. I bet that one has killed more people than anything else.

 

I was thinking imaginative in what deserves it but this is good stuff too.

For example, if someone were to say sacrifice lives of others routinely while driving up his countries inflation rate but making lots of money for himself and his friends, I think I would feel pretty good about taking someone like that out.

If someone makes a great living off lying to others and feeding off there superstitions so the poor give him money when they can't afford to take care of themselves or their families, I think I would feel pretty good about taking someone like that out.

If someone were to abuse those that he depended on to keep them in a sense of fear and/or impotence to continue his use of them, I think I would feel pretty good about taking someone like that out.

There are a lot of people I think deserve to die. The limiting factor is really the pros and cons of implementing such a thing.

 

I don't think everyone is qualified.

 

That may be, Stumbler, but it is also inherent in human nature to kill anyway. They're just doing their job. It's either life or death, they gotta have a way to live, y'know?

I consider myself liberal, but my survival is more important than anybody else's. If I have to kill somebody to ensure that I live, I will.

 

I don't think anyone is qualified. But it does not matter what you and I think. Killing people has been embraced as a solution to dealing with problems or justified for eons now. But there is a problem inherent in that which is that once killing is seen as a solution or justified that leaves it up to the individual to decide what is and is not a good enough reason. That will be true as long as it is seen as a viable solution to any number of problems. But I actually believe it could also be virtually eradicated among the human species by doing nothing more than changing our collective minds about it.

No, I've had extended discussions on this topic and there is nothing that shows killing in inherent in human nature. In fact there is much evidence and research to the contrary. Killing is a learned behavior just like violence is.

Now when it comes to personal survival I happen to agree there are two basic instincts; fight or flight, neither inherently includes killing however. While I can see the justification and would certainly resort to taking another human life to preserve my own I don't think that choice would be necessary if killing was seen as an unacceptable solution to problems.

 

good post

see, the thing I don't agree with about your idea of self defense though, is the fact that you didn't actually have to draw a weapon on them, you could very easily have grabbed one of their legs and flipped them from the ground, because think about it, if your life is in danger, you're in survival mode, and you can actually take your weapon out and shoot it, you could definitely do something else to get out of the situation and eliminate the threat, withouth killing, and without drawing a gun.

in my opinion, the only time that it is okay to pull out a gun and use it, is if somebody else has pulled one on you. otherwise, you're just being a punk ass instead of handling shit like a man.

 

But how easy would that be? I don't think we could change our collective minds about what is the best toilet paper to use, let alone something that really mattered.

 

agree with this

 

Yeah sure Baller all a 135 pound man, a 60 year-old man, or a 100 pound woman has to do when they are being stomped by a 250 pound man is just stand up there and whip their ass like a man. Really a practical solution that one is.

Easy isn't the point. The point is, is it possible? With probably a few 100.000 years of violence, killing and war being seen as one of our best solutions, you're right it would be tough to change that but what's a generation in years? 20 or 30 years max right? If one generation took it upon themselves to say killing is wrong, and each generation that followed became more convinced and dedicated to that idea would it take more than four or five generations?

 

so basically, you assume that the attackers are both 250 lb men, and that the guy being attacked is only 135, or maybe a 60 year old, or maybe a woman? well, besides the fact that how much you weigh has absolutely nothing to do with how tough you are, how about you realize that I was talking about a man, as in the same example that guy gave. I've got no problem with women carrying handguns or mace because a lot of them actually need it, but most men don't. most men can protect themselves, if the attacker is not armed with a gun, without using a weapon.

and I said nothing about standing up and fighting. I said getting rid of the threat to your life without killing. you can knock the attackers out, you can beat them badly, you don't have to pull a gun, unless they do.

 

Baller I think you miss the point. In that specific scenario sure, maybe there where 2 120lb men stomping on a 250 lbs man, but in general.

People who assault, bully, intimidate, etc, are acting as predators. Predators typically don't target the strongest most capable of defending themselves members of a herd. (Review lion hunting practices, any large cat hunting practices, wolf hunting practices, etc.)

What I'm getting at is the two thugs would have made a calculated decision as to wether or not their target posed a threat to them. Chances are, the target did not, and therefor the attack.

Try to think like a predator for a second: Would you seriously consider attacking a target you where certain would be able to defend itself capably?

Most attacks of this nature are one sided from the jump, with the attackers clearly picking a target they are confident has little or no means to defend itself.

 

It really does amaze me how blind to your own bullshit you really are. First, the example given by the poster you responded to was "two thugs" i.e. You still going to just jump up there and kick their asses baller? If you think you are, you've never been in a real fight in your life. Second we're talking in general terms here and you suddenly want to express some fantasy about "real men" which is just total bullshit. Finally Baller if size and weight did not matter in physical confrontations they would not have different weight classes for boxing wrestling and cage fighting would they?

 

If somebody attacks me with the intent of killing me, I will kill them, that is as simple as it gets. No bullshitting, no living for them, as they intended for me to die. If I die, they are forgiven, if I live, they will die.

*shrug*

 

I'm aware of that,

your delusion amazes me sometimes stumbler, it really does.

first off, FUCKING LISTEN TO IT THIS TIME I SAY IT, AIGHT? I said nothing about jumping up and kicking their asses, I said tripping them, grabbing their legs, and if two people had cheapshotted me and gotten me on the ground, you're damn right I would do that. it's not exactly hard to take the advantage in any situation, even from the ground, and it's not hard to go from being on the ground to being the agressor, if you know what to do. why the fuck do you think they teach all of these "self defense" classes?

and if you think boxing or wrestling or cage fighting is anything like a real fight, then you've never been in one in your life. It is not controlled, there is no ref, there are no holds barred, it's kick somebody's ass or get yours kicked, you arrogant ass. in boxing, or cage fighting, or any of it, you are fighting somebody for money, for rank, etc, who never did anything to you most likely, that is why there is a weight class, so people don't fucking die, and to keep it somewhat fair, you idiot.

so stumbler, take your bullshit, and shove it the fuck up your ass, cus I am tired of you running your mouth when you're dead wrong​

 

But is it inherently wrong? You seem to be claiming (as I would also) that it is perfectly reasonable for self defense. But you know there are other circumstances killing makes sense, we just hear some liberal mantras so much we think that makes us progressive open-minded people to agree with them. Nothing against liberals, I side with them more than conservatives, but this just seems silly.

Suppose you have a guy who is routinely beating, raping, and killing women and children but will not be prosecuted because of political connections? You really don't have the means to imprison this guy yourself, but you do get the opportunity to kill him? Would it be the right thing to do? I think it is a pretty clear answer, but once you say yes, you have to start taking into account the more grey areas. Surely everyone will reach a limit somewhere, but the point is killing is a very realistic and potential positive means of problem solving.