What would it take for you to kill without guilt?

To disable a threat but never with thoughtfull intention to end life, I would never premeditate a killing unless for food and hunting and as it's a human that's highly unlikely, unless in wierd plane crash scenarios.

In the heat of battle you dont think in those kind of terms, example "im going to kill him for what he did", *then proceed to killing them*, Unless you have an imediate threat at hand which needs to be taken out then you are no better than a villan in the darkness plotting foul things. Other people have been effected by emotions which caused them to act out in an untrained manner and commit whatever act of vileness that pissed you off, which in turn triggers your emotions. Then leading to you commiting the deed of killing another person based on an emotional wave of hate.

No matter what another man does I would still pity the fact that I had to plan his death and deliver it to him. But in the heat of the moment There is no time to think about consequences, the only important thing is that they die and not you, take them down fast and try to get bystanders and loved ones out of harms way. Afterwards you might feel bad for them but in a situation when its you or them you cant drop too many tears for them.

Even soldiers and warriors respect the enemy, peopple who they kill and are killed by on a daily basis in a war zone. a true warrior will always have a respect for his enemy, those who don't are just not mature in war and have not seen the other end of a weapon up close. maybe for example those lughead american soldiers you see making fun of the situation and throwing grenades around drinking beer and being abusive on youtube. they are just young punks who havent seen their comrades all die infront of them yet. Newbies who will soon act differently if they survive another 15 years in service.

It takes a few bodies under your belt before you start killing without feelings attatched like a hardened vet.



peace.
 
all we are discussing is justifiable homicide. now the thing to keep in perspective, whereas as laws are just based on 'what would a reasonable person conclude'.

that is afaik.
 
I think the intent is what would be personally, as opposed to legally, justifiable homicide.
 
Killing a person in defence is not homicide. Killing a person without justifiable reason is homicide. So, there cannot truly be justifiable homicide. Arguments like this become confusing if the terms are not well stipulated at the outset.
 
If they are zombies or vampires, it wouldn't bring any guilt... I hope they invent some robots who look like zombies, and anybody who can not control his/her ape urges, or anybody who enjoys hunting would relieve their tension upon them. Obviously there would still be some people around who were saying "let's not kill them, let's try to understand them".
No, they are robots, I mean robot zombies, like computer games but 3d real, like toys with blood, something like that...
God kills, Zeus kills, nature kills, because they don't have a sense of appreciation or any value systems, but we have, and we must preserve lives, architecture, knowledge, species, planet and everything; for that, we will always be responsible for our killings, no matter which part of the universe we commit this activity. Nothing makes it acceptable, not for humans...
 
Killing a person in defence is not homicide. Killing a person without justifiable reason is homicide. So, there cannot truly be justifiable homicide. Arguments like this become confusing if the terms are not well stipulated at the outset.

Yes looking up the term might help you:

Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of a human killing a human being. A common form of homicide, for example, would be murder. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Homicide is not always an illegal act, so although "homicide" is often used as a synonym for "murder," this is not formally correct.

...

Justifiable homicide

Homicides do not always involve a crime. Sometimes the law allows homicide by allowing certain defenses to criminal charges. One of the most recognized is self defense, which provides that a person is entitled to commit homicide to protect his or her own life from a deadly attack.

Some defenses include:

* Right of self-defense and defense of others
* Insanity defense—There are several tests to check insanity
o M'Naghten Rules
o Insane delusion
o Irresistible impulse test
o Substantial capacity test
o Durham rule
o Diminished capacity test
* Duress
* Defense of property
* Prevention of a crime
* Privilege of public authority—A person who has public authority to commit an act is not criminally liable.
* Entrapment—The defense of Entrapment exists when a law enforcement officer (or an agent of an officer) solicits, induces, or encourages another to commit a crime which they otherwise would not have committed.
* Mistake of fact—The defense of Mistake of Fact asserts that a mistake of fact will disprove a criminal charge if it is honestly entertained, based upon reasonable grounds and is of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as they were supposed to be.
* Mistake of law—Not a valid defense to crime except in rare instances where it negates an essential element of the crime. Therefore the old saying "ignorance of law is no excuse" is appropriate as a general rule.
* Unconsciousness—The defense of Unconsciousness holds that one who is unconscious, for instance, someone walking in their sleep, does not have the capacity to commit a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
 
QUESTION.....
What would it take for you to kill without fear of remorse,guilt or consequence and feel you were right in doing so...?

For me, after hurting friend's would be Money. Any remorseful blame (to me would lie on the contract employer).:jason:

Self defence .
 
Back
Top