Would YOU kill someone if you felt they really deserved to die?

by gaiagirl 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • SPAZnik

    Loaded question.

    Here is a quote (origin unknown btb from a Shaolin Temple):

    "I would rather maim than kill
    hurt than maim
    intimidate than hurt
    avoid than intimidate."

    Key word, "rather".

    I would do (and have done) what is necessary to protect myself and my loved ones. So far, that's never come down to killing anyone. (Though it has come down to killing a relationship, which at times, feels awfully damn close).

    I hope that it will never be necessary to kill someone.
    Of course, determining that necessity would be situation dependant.

  • asleif_dufansdottir

    If the person was an immediate threat to myself or my family, I could shoot.

    If I was *absolutely certain* of the situation (which would be a very rare occurance indeed), to act in defense of someone else, I might shoot.

    Could I 'flip the switch' after the fact? Doubtful. Of course, I do think there are those who need to be eliminated, I just don't know whether I could personally flip the switch.

    As a side note, those who say "shoot to wound" would be handicapping themselves in the US justice system. The only 'justified' shoot is if you are in fear for your life (or another's). If you 'only' shot to wound you weren't in fear for your life. Plus, kneecaps are a lot harder to hit than center of mass.

  • dvw

    i am with asleif on this one.

  • Justice-One
    Could I kill somebody if I really felt they deserved to die? Only if I was present while the threat was happening. If I came across somebody doing awful things to my family, yes. I wouldn't worry about it afterwards either.

    I have always said it would be very dangerous if you put myself, my family, or other innocents "in fear of death or great bodily harm" while in my presence. In short, I would have no problem at all with letting/helping someone that did the above assume room temp.

    Taking it one step further....given the lenthy appeals process in this country, I would not even have a problem being the one pulling the switch, or sticking the needle.

  • Justice-One
    As a side note, those who say "shoot to wound" would be handicapping themselves in the US justice system. The only 'justified' shoot is if you are in fear for your life (or another's). If you 'only' shot to wound you weren't in fear for your life. Plus, kneecaps are a lot harder to hit than center of mass.

    Center of mass....Frontsight....Press.... Repeat as needed.

    Once you have made the judgement that you are in fear for you life or "great bodily harm", (and this can be transfered to others) a job needs to be done. I was taught that a bad guy is a threat as long as he is on his feet.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Karma is a snare and a racket.

    "Do as thou wilt is the law." - Crowley 3:16

  • minimus

    If I knew it was either me or him, I'd shoot first. No problem.

  • sammielee24
    The piece of garbage that abducted the little girl in Florida last year. After abusing her he buried her alive.

    I'm certain if I were in the presence of someone who was brutalizing another person, I would automatically step in and if that resulted in bodily injury - then that would be that. Just today I was reading in the paper, where a father and step mother murdered his 12 year old son. How and why? The child was too fat for the father's liking and the step mother was disgusted by him apparently, so they handcuffed him to a post and fed him nothing but 1 tsp of pedialyte a day - it took 4 months but he lost 35 pounds and died. Not just from starvation but from a videotaped beating that lasted 4 days - 100 bruises and 74 injuries. Just like the guy in Florida..these vermin don't deserve to spend their life in prison. They don't deserve to breathe. They don't deserve anything. I believe when there is no doubt of guilt as in these 2 cases - why allow them the privilege to exist? They should simply be terminated. Could I do it? If that was my child who was buried alive and I knew the guy did it without a doubt - I most probably could. Perhaps instead of bad karma, I would choose to look at it as good karma..taking the scum off the street and doing something positive for the rest of society. Oh yeah.....they showed a picture of the father who beat and starved his kid to death - he doodled, yawned and looked bored while they sentenced him to death. Tell me - what value is this man to society? Two 16 year olds, broke down the door of a 90 year old blind and deaf womans house and beat her to death with her cane...for 200 bucks - where does it end? Do the elderly deserve to die any less peacefully than the young? sammieswife.

  • Thegoodgirl

    Hard question, not sure. I'm always thinking of things from everyone's point of view,and that makes me a softie. But I do think some people are a harm to society and belong locked up or killed. But I don't know if I would ever be able to pull the trigger to make that happen. I guess I"m like the above poster that said she could do it if it was all happening right in front of her...

  • sammielee24
    I believe that Ken Lay dying before he paid the price for what he did to his victims pretty much proves karma is a moot point.

    This is only a thought and not anything more, but I was watching the news and as soon as it was announced that Ken Lay had died of a heart attack, my first thought was 'smart, sneaky man'. By dying first, he spends no time in prison (his sentencing was expected to draw 45 yrs to life), his insurance can be collected by his family (and rest assured it's in the millions), his estate can be left to his wife and children who cannot be sued for his crimes..and I say this is all interesting. My first thought was that he popped some pharmaceutical to induce a massive heart attack - this can be done I'm sure. By doing so, he has safeguarded his family, made sure they are financially set and avoided prison. His estate was apparently worth about 9 million so if the feds stepped in and took their share, there would be nothing left but life insurance not being part of that estate and valued at over 9 million would pass directly to the wife and kids. Couldn't be touched. So what if he took matters into his own hands? swife.

Share this