When is murder justified by self-defense?

[Teeqoz]

archer9234 said:

aLkaLiNE said:

Comic books are a form of entertainment and have no place being compared to real world situations, if you think any life is so easily expendable then perhaps you should be the one with a bullet to the brain (I don't actually mean that, I can tell that you mean well, just trying to make a point)

Comic books is a generic example. Their are examples of real life bullshit. You would of saved peoples lives. And who says I need to kill? I'd actually hurt people in the legs or arms, to disable them. But even that would be still considered "wrong". If say I blew their leg off, by mistake. Or somehow paralized them. Like if I shoved a person down the stairs.

What If I killed someone, because the burglar had a blood clot in the brain? Or if, I just punched a person too hard? I'm supose to be a robot, and know the maxmium PSI to disable a person, right? The fuck do I need a bullet to the head? I know not to Burglar or do stupid shit. These people in question don't care. Do it still. If someone is actually threatens a life. Then you are going to have to stop them. But the choice is not gonna be known if it's right or wrong.

If your intention is to do what it takes to defend yourself, but you accidentally kill them, then that is not what this thread is adressing (at least not from what I can tell). Killing someone by accident in self-defense is completely different from killing someone purposely.

vivster said:

Teeqoz said:

In that case... what the fuck.  KK m8 death penalty for stealing a 50 cent chocolate bar seems pretty fair... Or do you think that's too extreme? Hard to tell what *is* too extreme for you when your opinions are that extreme.

We already have laws in place to decide what is extreme and what not. It's called "life long" sentence. I see no reason to keep those people alive when they're proven to be extremely harmful to other people.

 

I realize that my "extreme" opinion requires a flawless judicial system as to not kill off innocent bystanders. Well, no system that depends on human decisions is perfect.

You've went from "If a person wants to willingly physically harm another person it always deserves death." to "We already have laws in place to decide what is extreme and what not. It's called "life long" sentence. I see no reason to keep those people alive when they're proven to be extremely harmful to other people."

First one = extreme

Second one =/= extreme

So which is it?