Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Not sure if that's possible.
The moralty of murder
- Thread starter Lucifer_Carroll
- Start date
Not sure if that's possible.
Lucifer_Carroll
GOATS!!!
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Posts
- 3,319
Joe Wordsworth said:
Maybe it's an absolute relative. Like an overbearing mum or that one annoying uncle.
millennium_bard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Posts
- 745
I have met and had dealings with several convicted murderers in the past.
Among them one of the men involved in the Tina Braden case.
Only one of them ever expressed any remorse for the fact that he had taken a life.
The others only regretted getting caught.
As for myself. There are a few people in the world that I would not have a single qualm about killing, even though they do not pose a direct and immediate threat to me or my loved ones.
Yes I have killed someone. Both times in self defense.
I never lost any sleep over either time. They attacked me and I was the one who walked away at the end. And both times the Grand jury returned a decision of justifiable homicide.
But it seems to me that LC was intending this thread to be about murder by the popular understanding. The premeditated taking of a life as in just walking up to some stranger and shooting them, cutting their throat, or bludgeoning them.
In those cases, I believe that the person comitting the murder is already far beyond feeling any remorse over taking a life, and will only regret getting caught.
Among them one of the men involved in the Tina Braden case.
Only one of them ever expressed any remorse for the fact that he had taken a life.
The others only regretted getting caught.
As for myself. There are a few people in the world that I would not have a single qualm about killing, even though they do not pose a direct and immediate threat to me or my loved ones.
Yes I have killed someone. Both times in self defense.
I never lost any sleep over either time. They attacked me and I was the one who walked away at the end. And both times the Grand jury returned a decision of justifiable homicide.
But it seems to me that LC was intending this thread to be about murder by the popular understanding. The premeditated taking of a life as in just walking up to some stranger and shooting them, cutting their throat, or bludgeoning them.
In those cases, I believe that the person comitting the murder is already far beyond feeling any remorse over taking a life, and will only regret getting caught.
Street Mystic
Virgin
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Posts
- 10
Taking someone's life is only a physical action; it is the context in which it was taken which makes it moral or immoral.
If I kill you as father stopping you from killing my child, it is justifiable homicide.
If I kill you as a man protecting myself from you killing me, it is self-defense.
If I kill you as state executioner and you are the convict, it is imposing sentence of the court.
If I kill you as an infantryman and you are the enemy, it is doing my duty.
If I kill you because I was unable to avoid your car coming into my lane, it is an accident.
If I kill you as a drug dealer and you are my competition, it is first degree murder.
If I kill you as a robber and you are too slow giving me your wallet, it is second degree murder.
If I kill you as a moron joking with a gun and you’re in the bullet’s path, it is third degree murder.
If I kill you as a husband catching you having sex with my wife, it is voluntary manslaughter.
If I kill you as a drunk driving my car, it is involuntary manslaughter.
If I kill you as father stopping you from killing my child, it is justifiable homicide.
If I kill you as a man protecting myself from you killing me, it is self-defense.
If I kill you as state executioner and you are the convict, it is imposing sentence of the court.
If I kill you as an infantryman and you are the enemy, it is doing my duty.
If I kill you because I was unable to avoid your car coming into my lane, it is an accident.
If I kill you as a drug dealer and you are my competition, it is first degree murder.
If I kill you as a robber and you are too slow giving me your wallet, it is second degree murder.
If I kill you as a moron joking with a gun and you’re in the bullet’s path, it is third degree murder.
If I kill you as a husband catching you having sex with my wife, it is voluntary manslaughter.
If I kill you as a drunk driving my car, it is involuntary manslaughter.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
Joe Wordsworth said:
Maybe not, but I don't agree with either statement.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Combat, Murder, Self-Defence, Manslaughter...
This thread started with a heading about murder.
In most countries that implies pre-meditation and intent to kill.
Combat, police work, self-defence are totally different. I have met few people who have killed by legal means e.g. war who have not had regrets about killing even in the heat of combat.
There is a distinction between those who killed at a distance by bomb, shell or long range rifle fire and those who killed 'the enemy' face to face and personal by bayonet, knife or sidearm. Those who met the enemy never seem to forget him (or cease regretting the necessity to kill).
Murder is very different but again there are, not 'degrees' which has a specific meaning, but graduations. Assisting a suicide is murder in English Law. Should that be punished on the same basis as the random killing of a stranger?
If the 'murderer' is incapable of knowing that the act is wrong, is that person capable of murder? In English Law - No. There has to be a knowledge that the act is unlawful, a thought process before the act, and probably some attempt to avoid the consequences of the act.
If not, the killer is a danger to society but incapable of controlling the urge to commit the act and probably would be committed to a secure institution for life. Unfortunately for those few individuals and for society, 'life' does not necessarily mean life and they can be released to kill again.
In my view the murderers are the organisations that took the decision to release the individual back into Society, knowing there was a definite risk that the individual could kill again and the normal processes that stop us from killing are not present or very weak. The individual is not blameworthy in those circumstances and needs protection in the interests of society and himself.
Is killing with a car murder? If an elderly person steps out in front of a moving vehicle without looking and is killed as a consequence - the driver can only take some of the blame if they were driving too fast and without considering the possibility that someone might step out. If not, the cause is with the elderly person.
However a driver who is intoxicated, driving an unroadworthy, or unlicensed and un-insured vehicle, who kills a passenger, a pedestrian or other motorists because of aggressive or reckless driving - In my view that driver is a murderer and should be sentenced for murder.
Og
This thread started with a heading about murder.
In most countries that implies pre-meditation and intent to kill.
Combat, police work, self-defence are totally different. I have met few people who have killed by legal means e.g. war who have not had regrets about killing even in the heat of combat.
There is a distinction between those who killed at a distance by bomb, shell or long range rifle fire and those who killed 'the enemy' face to face and personal by bayonet, knife or sidearm. Those who met the enemy never seem to forget him (or cease regretting the necessity to kill).
Murder is very different but again there are, not 'degrees' which has a specific meaning, but graduations. Assisting a suicide is murder in English Law. Should that be punished on the same basis as the random killing of a stranger?
If the 'murderer' is incapable of knowing that the act is wrong, is that person capable of murder? In English Law - No. There has to be a knowledge that the act is unlawful, a thought process before the act, and probably some attempt to avoid the consequences of the act.
If not, the killer is a danger to society but incapable of controlling the urge to commit the act and probably would be committed to a secure institution for life. Unfortunately for those few individuals and for society, 'life' does not necessarily mean life and they can be released to kill again.
In my view the murderers are the organisations that took the decision to release the individual back into Society, knowing there was a definite risk that the individual could kill again and the normal processes that stop us from killing are not present or very weak. The individual is not blameworthy in those circumstances and needs protection in the interests of society and himself.
Is killing with a car murder? If an elderly person steps out in front of a moving vehicle without looking and is killed as a consequence - the driver can only take some of the blame if they were driving too fast and without considering the possibility that someone might step out. If not, the cause is with the elderly person.
However a driver who is intoxicated, driving an unroadworthy, or unlicensed and un-insured vehicle, who kills a passenger, a pedestrian or other motorists because of aggressive or reckless driving - In my view that driver is a murderer and should be sentenced for murder.
Og
Street Mystic
Virgin
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Posts
- 10
I'd certainly agree with you, Og.
but i see the "morality" or "immorality" of taking another's life as being wholly within the context of which that life was taken.
as discussed, in certain contexts, it is moral and acceptable and even lauded to kill someone else.
in other contexts, it is not, and grows ever more reprehensible, from the reckless accident to the calculated killing of another.
And of course, if you're the victim, whether your death was moral or immoral, you're still dead.
The thing with premeditation being the key to murder as opposed to a justified killing, the law generally describes "premeditation" - the idea and/or intent to act - as being able to be formed in the instant before the act itself is committed. i know that when you think of premeditation, you do think of some guy spending days planning to murder his wife or someone, but even just the decision to shoot someone right before you pull the trigger- whether you're robbing them or saving your child - is usually premeditation in and of itself. it may not even be an articulable thought - and most times, under extreme duress, it's only a bit more than a reflex.
Which is why the military enforces "muscle memory" training, in which something is so ingrained into your head i.e. engaging the bad guy- that there is no thought to it when the real thing comes along. One of the problems, especially in the civilian world, is that it is not a mode that one can easily switch out of. Self-defense and justifiable homicide have very, very narrow legal definitions (not that most people under fire consider anything other than their present dire circumstances - "hold on mr. bad guy, let me call my lawyer real quick before i shoot you") whereas combat is, quite simply, destroy the enemy. You might have a good clean shoot on main st, bad guy down, threat gone, then the good guy goes over and finishes off the unconcious guy with half a dozen rounds.
which is where degrees of murder come into play.
should the retired sergeant who served his country bravely but finished off some punk in a manner that his captain would have appreciated but the law frowns upon, be held to the same standard as some punk who thought it would be cool to kill a cop?
but i see the "morality" or "immorality" of taking another's life as being wholly within the context of which that life was taken.
as discussed, in certain contexts, it is moral and acceptable and even lauded to kill someone else.
in other contexts, it is not, and grows ever more reprehensible, from the reckless accident to the calculated killing of another.
And of course, if you're the victim, whether your death was moral or immoral, you're still dead.
The thing with premeditation being the key to murder as opposed to a justified killing, the law generally describes "premeditation" - the idea and/or intent to act - as being able to be formed in the instant before the act itself is committed. i know that when you think of premeditation, you do think of some guy spending days planning to murder his wife or someone, but even just the decision to shoot someone right before you pull the trigger- whether you're robbing them or saving your child - is usually premeditation in and of itself. it may not even be an articulable thought - and most times, under extreme duress, it's only a bit more than a reflex.
Which is why the military enforces "muscle memory" training, in which something is so ingrained into your head i.e. engaging the bad guy- that there is no thought to it when the real thing comes along. One of the problems, especially in the civilian world, is that it is not a mode that one can easily switch out of. Self-defense and justifiable homicide have very, very narrow legal definitions (not that most people under fire consider anything other than their present dire circumstances - "hold on mr. bad guy, let me call my lawyer real quick before i shoot you") whereas combat is, quite simply, destroy the enemy. You might have a good clean shoot on main st, bad guy down, threat gone, then the good guy goes over and finishes off the unconcious guy with half a dozen rounds.
which is where degrees of murder come into play.
should the retired sergeant who served his country bravely but finished off some punk in a manner that his captain would have appreciated but the law frowns upon, be held to the same standard as some punk who thought it would be cool to kill a cop?
