Man Kills Child Molester

[kira]

Could I kill someone who molested my child? I have no child yet, but if I have, yes I could, or die trying. (does that make me a psychopat...??). But then again, I wouldn't know unless it really happens.

If the molester is my own son? Hypothetically speaking, I'd probably kill him and then kill myself, otherwise I'd be going insane. The OP is trully tragic.

 

[deicider]

What? ....trying to make excuses for you unrealistic idealism?

Is this ur logic? =,=

 

[Grim_Reaper]

So humans should not have or act on emotions that they were born with? We should all be like Mr. Spock, never smiling, never happy, never doing anything that isn't absolutely logical and reasonable?

And you never forgive any emotional responses? ...like a man jumping into a raging fire to save a little kid who's screaming in agony? If he stopped to think about it, he wouldn't jump into that fire, would he?????

Nope, perhaps you're right ...humans should all be automatons, thinking, acting, talking, exactly alike, always the same in all situations.

Baron Max

You are talking about a complete different thing this shows premeditation by getting the gun taking the kid out to a field and they killing him.

And the world would be a better place would it not.

 

[jpappl]

I would not kill someone except if I caught them in the immediate act that needed to be prevented through force. I would not kill after the act took place, no to punish. The only justified killing is a prevention.

Anyone who disagrees with that is a bloodthirsty little piglet who I refuse to respect. Killing doesn't bring people back to life. It just ends more lives and needlessly so. That is a culture I do not want to be a part of.

The only justified killing is prevention.

Ok, so then killing the child molester is justified. Every time. Because they are guaranteed to repeat.

 

[WillNever]

So humans should not have or act on emotions that they were born with? We should all be like Mr. Spock, never smiling, never happy, never doing anything that isn't absolutely logical and reasonable?

And you never forgive any emotional responses? ...like a man jumping into a raging fire to save a little kid who's screaming in agony? If he stopped to think about it, he wouldn't jump into that fire, would he?????

Nope, perhaps you're right ...humans should all be automatons, thinking, acting, talking, exactly alike, always the same in all situations.

Baron Max

Why are you taking what he said (controlling yourself enough not to commit murder) to an illogical extreme that he never stated (stifling *all* emotions)? Does it help you to cope with intelligent arguments? Does it make it easier for you to appear more intelligent too? If so, that aim has not been fulfilled. It makes you seem dumb.

 

[WillNever]

The only justified killing is prevention.

Ok, so then killing the child molester is justified. Every time. Because they are guaranteed to repeat.

Nay, I stated that it's only acceptable when catching them in the immediate act. Killing them after the fact does not prevent more than imprisonment does.

 

[WillNever]

Thank you. Since no dead man commited any other crime, thanks for agreeing with the father... Otherwise you are well, an idiot...(BaronMax already pointed out the fallacy in your reasoning, if we could actually call that)

What I said to jpappl applies to you as well. Read whole posts. It does the mind good.

 

[WillNever]

Nope, sorry, but your original post made it abundantly clear that "killing is wrong" ....EXCEPT.... (your little scenario). See?

Baron Max

Exceptions do not invalidate the rule. That is why they are called "exceptions." I know, it's hard.

 

[Ellie]

I honestly believe i would turn a blind eye to the murder. Still, there needs to be some form of sanctioning. I know that i would recommend counseling.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I do find myself agreeing with the 'What about all the kids he'll never be able to molest if he's dead?' perspective...

 

[Ellie]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Logically yes.

But it's like saying hit the dog in the road don't swerve and hit the tree.

The dog walks off and then it's an accident for you. If you hit the dog, no at fault accident.

But how many people would actually just hit the dog ?

So it's ok to kill a dog rather than crumple some metal?

Would you do the same if it were a child?

 

[jpappl]

Nay, I stated that it's only acceptable when catching them in the immediate act. Killing them after the fact does not prevent more than imprisonment does.

I understand that and I don't disagree with it entirely or outright.

Considering that they will get out and often in a few years, prison only delays them from their next act. Unfortunately, even the molesters that have been caught and asked not to be let out because they would do it again are let out and will do it again, to someone elses child.

So our justice system is not working with these individuals.

The point being that by killing him, he ended any more abuse he can inflict, it represents a lot of failures, of which I am not sure which is the worst.

 

[jpappl]

So it's ok to kill a dog rather than crumple some metal?

Would you do the same if it were a child?

In the world of insurance, a dog yes.

In the case of a child no. The reason is that the dog will usually run off and often there are no witnesses, so when you tell your insurance company, a dog ran out in front of me and i swerved to miss it that's why I hit the tree.

They go, oh sure so where is this dog, it ran off. Ok, sure.

So basically you hit a tree, and any one car accident is at fault.

My point however, had to do with your reaction to the event. The example was to point out, that no matter how many times you are told to hit the dog, most of our reactions would be to swerve and miss it.

Likewise, if you walked in on a someone molesting your child you would react, you wouldn't be logically breaking down your options.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

In the world of insurance, a dog yes.

In the case of a child no. The reason is that the dog will usually run off and often there are no witnesses, so when you tell your insurance company, a dog ran out in front of me and i swerved to miss it that's why I hit the tree.

They go, oh sure so where is this dog, it ran off. Ok, sure.

So basically you hit a tree, and any one car accident is at fault.

My point however, had to do with your reaction to the event. The example was to point out, that no matter how many times you are told to hit the dog, most of our reactions would be to swerve and miss it.

Likewise, if you walked in on a someone molesting your child you would react, you wouldn't be logically breaking down your options.

Yes reacting is one thing going and getting a gun and taking the kid to a field and shooting him in the head in another. It shows the guy was cognizant enough to think to get the gun and then either walk or drive the kid to the field and then kill him. They guy was wrong no matter what way you look at this.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

As for the insurance and the Dog they will require you to have a Police report at least My insurance company does for any damages that will be claimed unless it is a natural disaster such as Hail or water.

 

[Ellie]

Grim_Reaper, how do you know it was a kid? I must have missed that part.

 

[jpappl]

Yes reacting is one thing going and getting a gun and taking the kid to a field and shooting him in the head in another. It shows the guy was cognizant enough to think to get the gun and then either walk or drive the kid to the field and then kill him. They guy was wrong no matter what way you look at this.

Yes, well I didn't say that he wasn't wrong, I was speaking in general terms.

I you walked in on the guy, you would react.

Whether they try to claim temporary insanity for this guy or not, I am sure there may be a case for it. I don't think it would be something that you would easily get over. How much time was there between when he found out and when he killed him ?

 

[Baron Max]

Nay, I stated that it's only acceptable when catching them in the immediate act.

So I gather that you're allowing a certain amount of time in which to get control of your emotions, right? Before that time, it's okay to kill someone to prevent a killing or molestation, right? But after that time, then it becomes unjustifiable and plain ol' murder? How much time?

Killing them after the fact does not prevent more than imprisonment does.

I'm still curious how you or anyone can tell what's going on immediately in some particular event ...how can you tell who's guilty of what just arriving at some horrific scene? What ...you just kill the one who seems to be winning the fight?

Humans are emotional, and trying to make out as if they can control their emotions is completely foolish. It's also completely foolish to think that emotional humans could stand around and calculate the philisophy of some particular event without allowing their emotions to come into play. Here at the forum, you can make idealistic statements and back them up with more idealistic statements, but this is not reality!

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Yes reacting is one thing going and getting a gun and taking the kid to a field and shooting him in the head in another. It shows the guy was cognizant enough to think to get the gun and then either walk or drive the kid to the field and then kill him. They guy was wrong no matter what way you look at this.

How long do you think emotions should last in this type of situation? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? Or would it take, say, an hour to forget the horrific molestation and forgive the kid? How long???

Baron Max