By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - When is murder justified by self-defense?

Teeqoz on 03 June 2016
archer9234 said:
Teeqoz said:

This. If taking someone else's life is the only way to protect yourself or others from serious harm. I'm shocked by how many here decide to throw human rights out the window just because someone enters their house or tries to rob them.

Excuse me? They decided to burglar people. The person ALREADY threw out their rights, to begin with. At no point is burglary justifyable. Unless the world has already ended. Your comment makes you sound like those lawyers that defend shit burglars like this.

No. Someone violating others human rights is disdainful, but does not allow you to violate their human rights in return. Like I said, use the amount of force to protect yourself or others from serious harm. You can't kill someone just because they try ro slap your wrist, or if they try to punch you in the guts.

 

I never said burglary is justifiable, so don't see why you're even saying that, trying to make it seem like that was something I said, when it's not.

 

The thing about UN's declaration of human rights is that they count for everyone, no matter what they've done or who they are, and I am a firm believer in that principle.



Around the Network
aLkaLiNE on 03 June 2016
archer9234 said:
aLkaLiNE said:

This goes under the premise that people can't change though... Your view is pessimistic which, I understand because I disdain society as a whole but that doesn't mean we can't change. We are all to varying degrees products of society. I think that there are other social structures we should examine before deciding that a violent individual needs to die. Or, for instance, what if someone made a regrettably violent act out of love? Such as a love triangle? That doesn't necessarily define who they are entirely as a person. It is but one aspect. Or what about someone that actively hates humanity but loves this planet and it's creatures? I'm not going to pretend to know your story Vivster, as we all come from different walks of life. But meeting violence with violence will only perpetuate more violence. If that weren't so then the world wouldn't forever be at war with itself. And that's why and where things need to change.

If a Burglar or whatever, does the same type crime, after awhile. They lose redemption. It's the same reason why people get mad at villians in comics. Batman would be over, if he stopped giving chances. After a certain point.

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)



Zkuq on 03 June 2016
hudsoniscool said:

If me or my kids are in danger, I would do whatever it takes. If someone breaks into my house they are done. Honestly whether that person intends to harm us is irrelevant to me. Said person doesn't deserve the air they are breathing.

For your own good, I hope no one ever breaks into hour house. If you killed a regular burglar, I doubt you'd have an easy time justifying that. And I believe in most countries you wouldn't even be able to get away with it at all.



archer9234 on 03 June 2016
Teeqoz said:
archer9234 said:

Excuse me? They decided to burglar people. The person ALREADY threw out their rights, to begin with. At no point is burglary justifyable. Unless the world has already ended. Your comment makes you sound like those lawyers that defend shit burglars like this.

No. Someone violating others human rights is disdainful, but does not allow you to violate their human rights in return. Like I said, use the amount of force to protect yourself or others from serious harm. You can't kill someone just because they try ro slap your wrist, or if they try to punch you in the guts.

 

I never said burglary is justifiable, so don't see why you're even saying that, trying to make it seem like that was something I said, when it's not.

 

The thing about UN's declaration of human rights is that they count for everyone, no matter what they've done or who they are, and I am a firm believer in that principle.

Sorry. You won't know when to do whats right or wrong. Till the event is over. You can't read peoples mind. And haven't we learned from movies. Being the good guy is usually the reason why they get fucked over. You make it sound like it's justifyable. Because their human rights are still counted. Once someone does this type of crap. That should be null and void. Why is their rights still vaild? Because, you want to be the better person. And not stoop to to a evil level? When they just broke some of mine?



vivster on 03 June 2016
aLkaLiNE said:
vivster said:

It was a double bait and switch. Because that's actually my real opinion.

As someone who suffered enough at the hands of idiots and brutes I do believe that people out to destroy other lives have no right to breath the same air as me. If I was the ones making laws we would not have lifetime prisoners or death rows. Instant bullet to the head is so much cheaper than spending my hard earned money to support disfunct subjects who actively work against society. Too bad our society jerks off to the thought that murderers and voilent criminals deserve a better life than their victims.

This goes under the premise that people can't change though... Your view is pessimistic which, I understand because I disdain society as a whole but that doesn't mean we can't change. We are all to varying degrees products of society. I think that there are other social structures we should examine before deciding that a violent individual needs to die. Or, for instance, what if someone made a regrettably violent act out of love? Such as a love triangle? That doesn't necessarily define who they are entirely as a person. It is but one aspect. Or what about someone that actively hates humanity but loves this planet and it's creatures? I'm not going to pretend to know your story Vivster, as we all come from different walks of life. But meeting violence with violence will only perpetuate more violence. If that weren't so then the world wouldn't forever be at war with itself. And that's why and where things need to change.

The problem is that we already have laws destroying their lives. What difference does it make incarcerating someone over decades? What good is their change of heart when they leave prison and are no longer of any use to society let alone put in any work to atone for their irreparable crimes? The good feeling of of somehow being better than murderers by not killing them is not enough of a win for humanity compared to overfilled prisons and ridiculous costs for "humane" executions.

Violence does not equal violence. When one is to destroy society and the other is to save society from harmful subjects. That's why you are allowed to torch a family of cockroaches and not a family of innocent humans.

Teeqoz said:
vivster said:

It was a double bait and switch. Because that's actually my real opinion.

As someone who suffered enough at the hands of idiots and brutes I do believe that people out to destroy other lives have no right to breath the same air as me. If I was the ones making laws we would not have lifetime prisoners or death rows. Instant bullet to the head is so much cheaper than spending my hard earned money to support disfunct subjects who actively work against society. Too bad our society jerks off to the thought that murderers and voilent criminals deserve a better life than their victims.

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.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
Azuren on 03 June 2016

In public: If they brandish a knife or gun at anyone who is not already brandishing their own know or gun and I have the ability to stop them at risk of killing them, I will.

In my home: If I don't know them, I will kill them to the best of my ability. Castle Law.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

archer9234 on 03 June 2016
aLkaLiNE said:
archer9234 said:

If a Burglar or whatever, does the same type crime, after awhile. They lose redemption. It's the same reason why people get mad at villians in comics. Batman would be over, if he stopped giving chances. After a certain point.

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. 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. I personally feel that you're better off blowing off a persons leg. Rather then the criminal blowing off your head. I never said use excessive force on every little shit. But when it's night, and especially if you have kids involved. That's the deciding factor.



aLkaLiNE on 03 June 2016
vivster said:
aLkaLiNE said:

This goes under the premise that people can't change though... Your view is pessimistic which, I understand because I disdain society as a whole but that doesn't mean we can't change. We are all to varying degrees products of society. I think that there are other social structures we should examine before deciding that a violent individual needs to die. Or, for instance, what if someone made a regrettably violent act out of love? Such as a love triangle? That doesn't necessarily define who they are entirely as a person. It is but one aspect. Or what about someone that actively hates humanity but loves this planet and it's creatures? I'm not going to pretend to know your story Vivster, as we all come from different walks of life. But meeting violence with violence will only perpetuate more violence. If that weren't so then the world wouldn't forever be at war with itself. And that's why and where things need to change.

The problem is that we already have laws destroying their lives. What difference does it make incarcerating someone over decades? What good is their change of heart when they leave prison and are no longer of any use to society let alone put in any work to atone for their irreparable crimes? The good feeling of of somehow being better than murderers by not killing them is not enough of a win for humanity compared to overfilled prisons and ridiculous costs for "humane" executions.

Violence does not equal violence. When one is to destroy society and the other is to save society from harmful subjects. That's why you are allowed to torch a family of cockroaches and not a family of innocent humans.

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.

I see what you're saying. It's a difficult subject to address and I'm not even sure how I feel entirely about it



Teeqoz on 03 June 2016
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?



archer9234 on 03 June 2016
Teeqoz said:
archer9234 said:

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.

That's what I saw from this thread. Who here said they're killing the person on purpose? No one. They're defending the family as they see fit. Unless the person was using the burglars head as a basketball. The burglar gave up, and they still killed the burglar. Or this was a setup. It should automatically be self defense. And these people should be banned from suing the family they burglared. That's a crock of shit.