Is murder ever justified by...

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

the actions of the murdered party, in situation where those actions don't jeopardize any ones health or life? Or, in other words, is it as immoral and illegal to murder a bad human being as it is to murder a good one?

Let's look at the military for examples. First off, why don't we examine the Mai Lai massacre? It probably stands as the most infamous modern case of modern American war crimes (and, to be quite honest, I still can't read even the wikipedia page on it without starting to cry a little bit) and certainly was one of the darkest moments in American history. American soldiers entered the Hamlet of Mai Lai and, per orders, proceeded to muder, rape, and torture every single non-American living being they could find. Hundreds died, and the few survivors owe their lives to 3 rogue American helicopter crew members who bravely landed and personally began evacuating woman, infants, children and, eventually, the men. For their brave actions, those three members of the military where viciously and personally insulted by Congress, demoted or fired, and in at least one case, the official orders where to try to kill one of them by having them purposely killed by the enemy in the field. Naturally the American people where shocked, and any good person views the acts of those soldiers as absolutely despicable and unforgivable. The massive outcry by Americans is widely believed to have played a huge factor in bringing about the end of the war.

Now, let's look at a second example of an American warcrime: the April 29, 1945 Dachau Massacre. American forces captured the Dachau concentration camp and proceeded to enter, at which point they discovered... well, exactly what you would expect to discover in 1945 Dachau. The American forces then proceeded to go batshit insane and kill or injure ever SS guard they could. No one particularly cared, and General Patton decided that a stern talking too was more then enough punishment to the soldiers involved.

----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------

So, again, is murder ever mitigated by exactly who is being murdered? Is it OK to allow illegal slaughter to go unpunished when the people being murdered are sociopaths and mass-murderers?

[aviewaskewed]

I'd say no, because that's a slippery slope that civilization starts to go down. It should always be that this sort of action is always wrong. Whether it's "the good guys" doing it or not (which of course is a problem in the American approach to the world to begin with, the idea that America is automatically the good guy in all situations). So no, I think an atrocity is an atrocity, is an atrocity.

[psycho-squirrel]

First part was horrible.
But second part, isn't SS the nazis? If so then they deserved to die.

[EXTREMEREDFOX]

If your defining murder as the shedding of innocent blood, then I agree that it should never be used. However justified killings and assassinations are more tolerable as it halts the abillity of those who wish to inflict mass destruction on others. For instance had Hitler been assassinated before he started slaughtering the Jews than its very likely millions of Jews would not have been killed. Critics may say that no man should end the life of another but I find many who support this view to be hypocritical since they will also support a woman's choice to kill the life of their own child. The argument of murder is irrellevant as most women find that when they become pregnant the cells have arranged themselves in such a way that the developing child is already uniquely genetically seperate from the mother, and has features already independent of the host mother. Therefore any forced termination of the fetus in cases where the mother's life is not threatened is an unecessary usage of lethal and unjustified force, which could be readilly defined as murder. As far as putting to death convicted murderers I have no problem with that so long as they perpetrator went through the legal process and was found guilty in court. Critics might say that often times people are wrongly imprisoned which I agree was a big problem in the past but with advances in genetics and forensics DNA analysis don't lie so the likely hood of someone being wrongfully convicted is incredibly low in relation to times past. Any time you willingly and deliberately forcefully take the life of another without just merit I believe you forfeit your own rights to life. Some argue that this eye for an eye ideal will turn the whole world blind, but this a ridiculous b/c not everyone goes about taking the lives of innocent people. If I certainly murdered someone I would accept the death penalty for I am paying the debt for the person's life I robbed earlier. Of course those best at sealing the fate of the killer should be the victim's family and close friends since no one was impacted worse than they.
Oh and Rapists should also be eligible for the death penalty as well. If the victim survived the horrible ordeal I think its a fair trade off if she decides the fate the rapist, afterall its justice being fullfilled on her behalf. At the end of the day though life imprisonment and the death penalty won't stop murderes from murdering, it hasn't in the past and present so I seriously doubt it will in the future. Thank goodness those types of people are usually at a minimum.

[Psil0]

Murder is never justified, the Mai Lai Massacre was an extremely dark tale on both sides. Essentially the reality of it all was that the U.S. soldiers' morale had deteriorated down to the point that they didn't care who died. In their view every Vietnamese person was an enemy. If you really look down at it, the Viet Cong brought this upon those people with the style of warfare they used. It was so hard to discern an enemy from a civilian. All of these men before they were sent to war would have never done that, but they had reached their breaking point. I think the only person who was actually convicted of war crimes was a Lieutenant who was leading the men. That overall is just a dark part of the war for both sides.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 4/23/09 01:20 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: First part was horrible.
But second part, isn't SS the nazis? If so then they deserved to die.

The SS where the head Nazi's, E.G the guys who in that situation would have been running the concentration camps under the direct orders of the Nazi Party. While some common Camp Guards under orders of the military where also murdered, the SS, once identified, where the prime targets.

[MJTTOMB]

I'm pretty sure that in a war, if they're armed, as I'm certain the S.S. were, it's not considered murder to kill them in combat. If they were taken captive and then killed execution style, I'd say there's a problem with that.

[therealsylvos]

At 4/23/09 12:35 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Or, in other words, is it as immoral and illegal to murder a bad human being as it is to murder a good one?

Read this part people.

Even if you say the second case isn't justified (completely reasonable). Would you say the people who murdered women and children are equal to the people who murdered Nazis?

[morefngdbs]

Murder must be justifyable.
If it wasn't there would be no death penalty in the US & other countries.

You can sugar coat the reasons the 'state' executes offenders that are deemed by judges to 'deserve' a death penalty...but that's still the murder of another human being.
So when your talking about murder, let's not forget about the "LEGAL" ones as well .

[thedo12]

At 4/23/09 09:14 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Murder must be justifyable.

only in cases were your own life depends on killing another aka: self defense

If it wasn't there would be no death penalty in the US & other countries.

if the person is in jail and is no longer a threat to scoiety , the death penality is just petty revenege .

and killing someone for revenge is never justafyable in my opinion.

You can sugar coat the reasons the 'state' executes offenders that are deemed by judges to 'deserve' a death penalty...but that's still the murder of another human being.

exactly

[GrammerNaziElite]

As far as I'm concerned, it's not possible to commit war crimes against Nazis.

Murder is always wrong, but it is sometimes justified.

[Jinzoa]

Muder can always be justified in anyones eyes, it's part of survival also to an extent for us(You can either be killed or kill the attacker in situations where your life is on the line)

Personally it comes down to your morals/beliefs(or lack of even) in trying to come to a situation when it can be justified.

I'm sure most people would think the killing of a man/women who got off on a technicallity(say the vital peice of evidance was handled incorrectly by police) from the rape/murder and mutilation of a bunch of kids would be seen as "justice". Murder in that scenario would be seen as justified by the parent(s) or even community of said victims and probably alot of peoples eyes also.

Personally i think you can easily justify it and rightly so, though there are quite a few grey areas(Husband beats wife and kids on a daily basis, having affairs and spending money on his mistress and so on) but i could easily see how it can be just from time to time.

[gumOnShoe]

Murder is the planned and motivated killing of another individual. There are all sorts of times when killing is the right thing to do, but murder is something else. If you are killing someone to defend yourself or others, you aren't murdering that person.

[Generalissimus]

At 4/23/09 02:34 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Murder is the planned and motivated killing of another individual. There are all sorts of times when killing is the right thing to do, but murder is something else. If you are killing someone to defend yourself or others, you aren't murdering that person.

I agree with gumOnShoe. Murder and killing are two different things. I believe that killing in defense of yourself or others is perfectly justified. Murder is planned out beforehand for revenge, greed, or other personal reasons.

Government's actions are often questionable, especially when it deals with military affairs. Governments change all the time, such as when new people are put in charge. What was once celebrated and encouraged by the government one day, may be denounced and condemned the next. Governments actions usually reflect their agenda. Just because they say its right and justified, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

[aninjaman]

Try to say "killing is good in situation X." and people will flock to find exceptions to what you say.
Killing, murder, and whats good and bad are relative. Why even try to not judge this on a case by case basis?

[stafffighter]

At 4/23/09 09:47 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 4/23/09 09:14 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

If it wasn't there would be no death penalty in the US & other countries.

if the person is in jail and is no longer a threat to scoiety , the death penality is just petty revenege .

and killing someone for revenge is never justafyable in my opinion.

Well let's go into how murder has been defined, as premeditated. Say someone's coming to attack you and you decide how to defend yourself. While still in self defence of a particular act this is a planned responce to an action. People caught in this situation are often traumatized because despite full justification they took a human life. Maybe in the rush of the moment your thoughts were constrained but it's that thoughts did take place that causes the damage.But something done in the utter heat of the moment you can almsot play off as not having happened because you didn't make the choice.
The truth is sometimes hard choices have to be made. Like the prisoner in your example. Yes, being locked away does remove them effectivly as a threat to society but it's not absolute. If someone had caught them in the act and killed them it would be the same end affect as an exicution but people here are defending that left and right. If the person commited this act and unrestrained could again then what changes? They aren't some vaugely defined lack of quality, they commited a specific act.
Of course there are a multutide of factors to complicate this and rightfully so. The taking of a life is not something to be lightly considered. That's why we have and need law beyond jungle law.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/23/09 09:47 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 4/23/09 09:14 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Murder must be justifyable.

only in cases were your own life depends on killing another aka: self defense

;;;;
I think it was 'Gum on shoe' who pointed it out, self defense is manslaughter
but manslaughter is the unintentional or accidental killing of a human. So in this case you can't use that as justification...& that's the 'legal' opinion & still doesn't always mean your not going to be held somewhat accountable for the persons death.
In this country (& many others) defending yourself requires the use of 'reasonable force' using only enough force to neutralize the threat...that's why people are often charged no matter how we as the public see it. Police are basicly the clean up crew & the put it in the hands of judges & they're the ones who get to decide

[homor]

say what you will about Iraq, nothing that happened there was even close to Hamlet of Mai Lai.

[dudewithashotgun29]

I havent read your entire post, but I think it would be justifiable if it is in self-defense of you or your loved ones.

[Leo625]

If it's just somone who you know has killed some people walkin down the street and you shoot him, then yes you're up for murder charges. His character doesn't matter if you're not being threatened.

Now psychopath or not if he's causing immediate danger to your life then you can legally kill him in self defence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I say the Natzi's had it coming.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 4/23/09 12:44 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'd say no, because that's a slippery slope that civilization starts to go down. It should always be that this sort of action is always wrong. Whether it's "the good guys" doing it or not (which of course is a problem in the American approach to the world to begin with, the idea that America is automatically the good guy in all situations). So no, I think an atrocity is an atrocity, is an atrocity.

I agree, murder is always wrong no matter what the circumstance, doesn't matter if a person's life was in danger, murder is still wrong.
But either way its a matter of personal opinion as well as the laws of a given country, the laws more than opinion exept the majority opinion that made the law 8)

[Shaggytheclown17]

Also I believe the bump the people here ned to get over is that government law thing where a person can go free though they murdered somone....

The reason people go to jail for murder is to prevent them from doing it again, if in the event a person kills another to save themselves or others, that doesn't imply they'll do it again whereas lets say a person kills another for calling them a bad name, obviously that person would keep killing people if allowed his or her way.
And the death penalty......I'm not sure about, maybe the jail treats prisoners like an animal shelter n kill them if they've been there too long or cause too much trouble n save money er something...... but yeah I'm jus shooting the shit now lol.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

I believe murder is never justified. not even self-defense, though I do agree with Capital Punishment.

[Ericho]

At 4/30/09 06:27 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I believe murder is never justified. not even self-defense, though I do agree with Capital Punishment.

So...what would you do if something was trying to kill you? I'm not getting your logic.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/30/09 09:20 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/30/09 06:27 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I believe murder is never justified. not even self-defense, though I do agree with Capital Punishment.

So...what would you do if something was trying to kill you? I'm not getting your logic.

oh Im sorry I wasn't being specific If someone was trying to kill me I would. If they were mugging me and just taking my belongings I would put up a fight but not kill them.

sorry I was tired and not paying attention when I was posting.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 4/30/09 09:20 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/30/09 06:27 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I believe murder is never justified. not even self-defense, though I do agree with Capital Punishment.

So...what would you do if something was trying to kill you? I'm not getting your logic.

You drop your pants, bend over n take it like a man.....(chuckles)

If you can't figure this shit out then I'm going to have to hurt you 8) nah jk

Murder is wrong ok?
So lets say you do something, I dunno, kill somone who was trying to kill you.....aight?
So, if murder is wrong, "your" brain probably made the connection of "well if murder is wrong then they must expect people to go ahead n let the person kill them"......(sarcastic gasp)

No....you don't let somone kill you....that would be the equivilant of suicide pretty much.

Ofcourse you have to fight back if you know your life is in danger, and what could've taken me 1 sentance to tell you has took me several because I want you to suffer for being so thick......

Murder= bad, death=bad, but if you must murder another person to prevent them from killing you or another, that is considered ok because you're not going to be killing anyone else but the person or persons who were trying to kill you or somone else, its still bad n you've done a bad thing, but you didn't do it for a bad reason, and ofcourse you might make another bad connection n talk about war n all that other crap.
War is very bad, war is waged by people who use stupid people to fight n they force them to fight and keep everyone whos stupid enough to believe it, brainwashed into thinking they will die if the other guys aren't killed first, if somone is a thousand miles away talking shit, obviously a smart person wpuldn't give much of a shit (internet bitching for example)

Aight I'm bored now, peace.

[Bacchanalian]

At 4/30/09 05:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: No....you don't let somone kill you....that would be the equivilant of suicide pretty much.

1) Defending yourself doesn't automatically guarantee you'll survive, or even necessarily increase your chances of survival.

2) The dilemma is not always "him or me." You don't always have to kill the person trying to kill you in order to defend yourself.

[Patton3]

I think that since the definition of good and bad varies so greatly between people, it's just better to stay off that path and punish one murderer the same as another.

[Phratt]

At 4/23/09 01:24 AM, EXTREMEREDFOX wrote:
Oh and Rapists should also be eligible for the death penalty as well. If the victim survived the horrible ordeal-

I was agreeing with you until that spot.

So If I'm so lonely that I go completely insane and force someone to have sex with me, I should lose all priveleges to life?

I can plainly admit, if some fat old smelly dude stuck his dick up my butt, I certainly would not say he deserves death or life in prison. People go crazy and make mistakes, rape is forgivable because the victim is still alive and can live on. Murder is not because the victim can never heal.

The psychological trauma from rape is comes moreso from the societal views on rape than the actual rape itself. It embarrasses the victim and confuses them. If people stopped over exaggerating forced sex, then they'd be less traumatized. Now there are extreme cases where the results are dire, but those aren't just rapists, they are people who torture their victims for amusement, AND rape them. For example, kidnapping and raping someone for years, is torture. But getting drunk and beating a bitch one night and raping her, although horrible, does not mean the persons life should taken away for good.