What would it take for you to kill without guilt?

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

killing for self-defence, rationalisation of the event (the y).
some people will kill for the slightest reason because they can

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kMd_NCMETp4

As an outsider I cannot logicaly rationalise this............:shrug:

 

[pharaohmoan]

define duress

I am going to have to deal with vilont, drug acidected, mental ill pts on a daily basis. I have NO right to kill them, im there to TREAT them

Sorry can't define duress it's too personal and would involve too many mitigating factors.

killing for self-defence, rationalisation of the event (the y).
some people will kill for the slightest reason because they can

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kMd_NCMETp4

As an outsider I cannot logicaly rationalise this............:shrug:

The killing in this youtube link infuriates me as it is typical of all that is wrong with american attitude towards excessive measures of defence

 

[greenberg]

I am asking what it would take for you to kill without guilt etc.
you can say i would not kill because i would feel guilty but generaly there is a line where your morals are sidetracked and instincts take over.

In the heat of the moment: if someone would be hurting me or my loved ones.
In battle as a soldier, as a police officer or armed government agent on duty, or similar. (There was a time when I wanted to be a sniper.)
If the person (or animal) would be carrying a dangerous infectious disease and would be threatening to infect others.

But I don't see those cases as my "morals being sidetracked and instincts taking over".

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

In the heat of the moment: if someone would be hurting me or my loved ones.
In battle as a soldier, as a police officer or armed government agent on duty, or similar. (There was a time when I wanted to be a sniper.)
If the person (or animal) would be carrying a dangerous infectious disease and would be threatening to infect others.

But I don't see those cases as my "morals being sidetracked and instincts taking over".

if you believe it is imoral to kill someone, you would still kill if a loved one was being attacked ,you instinctivly attack to protect even though you may not be an aggressive person.

and If you watch the video link.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kMd_NCMETp4

I believe that he and his partner probably had been out drinking the night before. he did not seem to be acting out of morality, more like confusion, the set of morals which as a policeman he represent's are not present instead he seems to instinctively act thuggish.
if you kill someone and you conciously know its is moraly wrong whislt in the act of killing then you have commited murder?
if you kill someone and at the time say(seeing red) you would be oblivious to the morality of the action until afterwards (diminished responsibility)

 

[greenberg]

Frankly, and I realize that I am presenting a rather uncommon view, I think that issue of killing does not have much to do with "morality", but more with pragmatism.

The question "Is it immoral to kill someone?" is, IMO, moot, even if the specifics are given (such as "Is it immoral to kill someone in self-defense?").

Because on the other hand, there is the question "Is it immoral to let someone kill you?"


On the whole, I wish there would be no killings, ever, in any way, for any reason.
However, to ensure some safety and order in the life of a society and the individual, it is sometimes necessary to kill. This is a fact of living on a planet with limited resources.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Frankly, and I realize that I am presenting a rather uncommon view, I think that issue of killing does not have much to do with "morality", but more with pragmatism.

The question "Is it immoral to kill someone?" is, IMO, moot, even if the specifics are given (such as "Is it immoral to kill someone in self-defense?").

Because on the other hand, there is the question "Is it immoral to let someone kill you?"


On the whole, I wish there would be no killings, ever, in any way, for any reason.
However, to ensure some safety and order in the life of a society and the individual, it is sometimes necessary to kill. This is a fact of living on a planet with limited resources.

do you think the killing in the video was immoral or justified?

 

[Syzygys]

QUESTION.....
What would it take for you to kill without fear of remorse,guilt or consequence and feel you were right in doing so...?

About a thousand bucks, but if I am drunk, I might go as low as $500. I have a very cheap conscience...

 

[Syzygys]

And none of you know until you actually kill someone.

Yeah, hypoteticals are a bitch. That's why we use IMAGINATION to answer them....

 

[mikenostic]

Your first condition infuriates me and imo is totally wrong and immoral.

Oh well. I guess you can sit there and be infuriated then.
1. Most every state, if not every (including my state of residence) has a law that gives homeowners the right to use deadly force against home invasion.
If it's in the middle of the night, and I have my shotgun out going after them, I'm not going to fuckin ask whoever's in my house if they are teens with nothing to do, or someone trying to feed their family, or if they're cracked out. At that point, I don't give a fuck why they are in my house; only that they are, and they know better.
2. unless potential burglars have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, they also know about this law. SO, whenever they do enter a house, they know that the owner has full rights to kill them deader than 4 o'clock. They know better, and I have no sympathy for them.

Most people break into houses because they have either fallen on hard times (societys problem), are drug adicts, are kids with nothing to do, or have to feed themselves or their family.

Regardless of how bad my situation got, I would never parasite off someone else by breaking into their house. Like I said, they know better and I have no sympathy. If you don't want to get stung, don't poke around a hornets' nest.

There are only a small percent that might have malintent and would warant being killed. I can't see how you would pick the later out from the other catagories of criminals. I which case your act of killing under your first statement would be total immoral.

But their total disregard for my property (especially when I, my spouse/children/dogs are in there as well) is moral?

find the order quite interesting

Defending property is the weakest reason

Get back to me on this when someone breaks into your house while you, and your children are there.

Defending pets only slightly higher

Not when you consider your pets as family members like I do. They would give their life to protect me and I would do the same for them. I owe it to them to be worthy of such devotion.

Would I feel guilty for killing a person under any of those circumstances? Nope.
Would it be on my conscious that I had to take another person's life? You bet it would. I hope I never ever have to take another person's life.

 

[shorty_37]

I bought a couple of signs for my b/f as a joke that I saw one day.

The first one says:

WE DON'T DIAL 911 (WITH A PICTURE OF A HAND WITH A GUN)

second one:

These Premises are Monitored by:

SMITH
&
WESSON (pictures of guns)

 

[shorty_37]

I would have no problem defending myself or my family if someone broke into my house.
I can't beleive you are making excuses for ppl that do break in. We should sympathaze that they may being going through bad times???????
Not to mention if you wake up in the middle of the night to hear ppl running around your house. I doubt you take the time to analyze what type
of person they are, and why they are in your house. My first thought would be OMG!! Then I would go and get the kids!! I would try and avoid
any type of struggle if possible. They could take whatever they wanted. I wouldn't put my life or families in danger to save a plazma TV or some XBOX
material stuff. But if they attacked me or the kids I would do whatever I needed to myself and family.


To Mike: What do you think your dogs would do in that situation. Do you think they would try and attack a stranger that was
attacking you inside your house? Or they aren't the type to do that.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Oh well. I guess you can sit there and be infuriated then.
1. Most every state, if not every (including my state of residence) has a law that gives homeowners the right to use deadly force against home invasion.
If it's in the middle of the night, and I have my shotgun out going after them, I'm not going to fuckin ask whoever's in my house if they are teens with nothing to do, or someone trying to feed their family, or if they're cracked out. At that point, I don't give a fuck why they are in my house; only that they are, and they know better.
2. unless potential burglars have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, they also know about this law. SO, whenever they do enter a house, they know that the owner has full rights to kill them deader than 4 o'clock. They know better, and I have no sympathy for them.


Regardless of how bad my situation got, I would never parasite off someone else by breaking into their house. Like I said, they know better and I have no sympathy. If you don't want to get stung, don't poke around a hornets' nest.


But their total disregard for my property (especially when I, my spouse/children/dogs are in there as well) is moral?


Get back to me on this when someone breaks into your house while you, and your children are there.


Not when you consider your pets as family members like I do. They would give their life to protect me and I would do the same for them. I owe it to them to be worthy of such devotion.

Would I feel guilty for killing a person under any of those circumstances? Nope.
Would it be on my conscious that I had to take another person's life? You bet it would. I hope I never ever have to take another person's life.

Is your desire to kill burglars is based on your outrage at their violation of your property (including pets) or yourself and your family? If it's property, then why limit "Castle Laws" to homes, and why are setting death traps (for when you are out of your home) still illegal?

The way castle laws work is (1) the homeowner is permitted to assume the criminal is prepared to use deadly force (which, even tough probably not usually true, is a fair "benefit of the doubt" in favor of the homeowner) and (2) they remove the common law duty to retreat./[sup]1[/sup]

With those two things in place, Castle laws basically set up the claim that you killed in self defense, without an unduly complex inquiry into the nature of the threat faced and what the homeowner's options were. The laws do not stand for the proposition that it is okay to kill to protect property (or pets). It is still more concerned with protecting lives rather than mere "stuff."

-----
1. Because I think the duty to retreat is often unfairly maligned, I point out that all the "duty to retreat" requires is that you retreat *if* retreat is a safely available option and only if no one is left in danger after the retreat. In other words, if you can safely walk away from the fight, then walk away. You do not have to risk being shot yourself (not even a small risk) or leave anyone behind, so it is a pretty limited and common sense principle.

 

[15ofthe19]

Your first condition infuriates me and imo is totally wrong and immoral.
Most people break into houses because they have either fallen on hard times (societys problem), are drug adicts, are kids with nothing to do, or have to feed themselves or their family. There are only a small percent that might have malintent and would warant being killed. I can't see how you would pick the later out from the other catagories of criminals. I which case your act of killing under your first statement would be total immoral.

How in the world could you ever assume you know the intent of someone breaking into your home? I mean, maybe this is how people sort of Darwin themselves out of the herd, and maybe it's just meant to be that way. But no one of sane mind would ever assume they know the intent of someone desperate enough to break into a home while it's occupied. A sane mind does not have time to make that uncalculated gamble. The instinct of self-preservation will outweigh the "what-if", and if it doesn't and you die, well that was what should have happened.

 

[mikenostic]

To Mike: What do you think your dogs would do in that situation. Do you think they would try and attack a stranger that was
attacking you inside your house? Or they aren't the type to do that.

Without a doubt, especially considering one of my dogs is a 90 lb male Blue Doberman. I'm sure you know that the main reason they were bred was for guard duty; they are world reknowned for this.
My other dog is a 55 lb female Boxer. While not bred for guard duty, they were bred to take down game bigger than they are, and were used as fighting dogs before Pits became popular. I don't think any burglar would want to deal with that pair ready to bite them profusely.

Is your desire to kill burglars is based on your outrage at their violation of your property (including pets) or yourself and your family?

Just like 15 mentions above, I don't know why they are in my house. I don't care why. What happens if I decide to take your bleeding heart liberal stance in the matter and not end their life, then the perp takes advantage of that situation and kills me instead.

Your logic is in serious need of an overhaul.

If it's property, then why limit "Castle Laws" to homes, and why are setting death traps (for when you are out of your home) still illegal?

Well first off, the police would have to PROVE that I was setting a death trap. Secondly, of all the cops that I've spoken with (including my mom), ALL of them say if they even deem even a slight possibility that the perp had indeed been a threat, they ask no more questions and will not file charges. More often than not, the cop will side with the homeowner.
One exception would be if the cops/forensics came to the conclusion that you knowingly shot the person in the back. If the person turns and runs, he/she is no longer considered a threat. If a person breaks into my house, and I can see him, and he manages to turn and run outside before I can pull the trigger, I will not shoot him.
In fact, chances are, when they hear Kingston barking, they probably wouldn't even take the chance of trying to break into my house. If you've never heard a pissed off Dobie barking, it's a very unsettling sound, especially if you're on the business end of it.
And chances are, if they are breaking into my house in the middle of the night, the lights will be out and I won't be able to tell if he's armed or not, nor will I take the time to ask him. According to the law, I don't have to.

The way castle laws work is (1) the homeowner is permitted to assume the criminal is prepared to use deadly force (which, even tough probably not usually true, is a fair "benefit of the doubt" in favor of the homeowner) and (2) they remove the common law duty to retreat./1

With those two things in place, Castle laws basically set up the claim that you killed in self defense, without an unduly complex inquiry into the nature of the threat faced and what the homeowner's options were. The laws do not stand for the proposition that it is okay to kill to protect property (or pets). It is still more concerned with protecting lives rather than mere "stuff."

-----
1. Because I think the duty to retreat is often unfairly maligned, I point out that all the "duty to retreat" requires is that you retreat *if* retreat is a safely available option and only if no one is left in danger after the retreat. In other words, if you can safely walk away from the fight, then walk away. You do not have to risk being shot yourself (not even a small risk) or leave anyone behind, so it is a pretty limited and common sense principle.

As I mentioned above, cops will almost always side with the homeowner on this one. All of the formalities mentioned in the law you posted above become a moot point when the officer (who may have a house/family/children/pets of his/her own) has empathy for the homeowner and refuses to bring charges against them.

You seem like one of those types that would be on the side of a burglar who decided to sue a homeowner for shooting him, even if the burglar was doing something illegal.

 

[greenberg]

Pinocchio's Hoof,

I don't think there will be all that much in-depth response to your question. Because this is online, for all to see, and there could be legal repercussions for certain input - so some people will avoid posting their detailed opinion.

One reason for feeling no guilt over killing someone that it seems hasn't yet been posted in this thread is religious, political or other ideological persuasion.
There are people who feel absolutely no guilt over killing someone who, according to their religious, political or other ideological persuasion, deserves to be killed.

But it seems to me that this is an area that cannot really be explored in an open online forum.

 

[USS Exeter]

Burgalers can very often turn into murderers as a result of being startled by the homeowner. I'd kill a burgaler was in my house merely as an act of self-defense. For all I know, he could have a gun or a knife; a 2nd degree murder just waiting to happen.

 

[mikenostic]

Burgalers can very often turn into murderers as a result of being startled by the homeowner. I'd kill a burgaler was in my house merely as an act of self-defense. For all I know, he could have a gun or a knife; a 2nd degree murder just waiting to happen.

Exactly! I just don't understand how that escapes Pandaemoni and others' perceptions.
Unless the burglar is just stupid or high on something, or thinks that no one is home, he's not going to break into a house unarmed.

 

[shorty_37]

I don't think anyone would break into my house. Bruce (my dog ) would go mad!
He barks like crazy when he hears someone walking up onto the porch. I don't
think a robber would chance it. I think having dogs is one of the best deterrent against
someone picking your house to break into.

 

[Asguard]

i have to agree, i dont lock my back door unless we are going away, my partner is fanatical about the roller shuters but when she isnt here i dont care about them up or down (they are actually a fire hasard so they should only be down when your awake). I just relie on my little dog (she is a really agressive little multess x lasaupso) to set off the big one (german sheped x red heeler). NO ONE would chance going up against nutmeg but she is actually one of the worlds most silly dogs She bounds around like a puppy

 

[shorty_37]

Yeah Bruce is a Jack Russel mix. He is NUTS though. He doesn't want anything or anybody invading HIS space. If someone rings the doorbell he goes crazy!! He goes to the front window barking and growling. Sometimes ppl think awwwwwwww he/she is so cute and come towards the window. He lunges himself against it with the most visious showing all his teeth.......I will kill you look haha. They quickly get off the porch and leave. It is great for those CHURCH PPL lol