Murder - would you have it in you?

[Amara]

Not something even those that commit it really plan to do. But still, you'd think some people are more susceptible to certain crimes. Others have more firmly set morals on the subject.

For me, I'd definately be capable of murder if I was facing an immediate threat to my life. Self defence, that is.

I dont know if I could be provoked to such an extent that I would lose control and be overcome with rage. I could have a really bad temper, but I tend to implode not explode, so I dunno the extent of violence I'd be reduced to.

So for others what would it be like for you, self defence? Provocation? What about revenge...? If someone harmed you, your friends, your family? Do you think you'd be justified - not would you, but rather could you?

 

[Shahin]

Probably cus I lose my temper so fast, yeah I guess I could do it under the right (wrong) circumstances. I don't know if it's smoething I could live with having done though, I usually get a guilty conscience for even the smallest things, so killing someone would eat me up (unless of course it was to protect my family or friends, in which case I hope I wouldn't hesitate).

 

[Rahim]

Since I don't have the right to take anyone's life, I wouldn't try to murder anyone. But if someone ever phsyically hurt someone I Love, and they were right there in front of me, then ofcourse I would be angry and feel like hurting them. I wouldn't plan a murder because if I did murder someone, I would fear for myself right after that. God would punish me for sure.

 

[Tru Principle]

If it's to protect an innocent and the only way to do so is by ending the life of a person who threatens this innocent... then by all means, I would not hesitate and I would shoot to kill. However the problem is realizing if there actually is a real threat.

 

[Emma]

If it was self defence and if my family were in danger then yeah maybe. But I feel bad even when I shout at people so I dunno lol

 

[not really ken]

Murder is when you do it unlawfully, I believe there are situation where you are able to kill that wouldn't go contrary to law.

So, no I wouldn't murder but I would be prepared to kill

 

[Amara]

Murder is when you do it unlawfully, I believe there are situation where you are able to kill that wouldn't go contrary to law.

Only if like 007 or some shit you have a licence to kill.

If it's self defence or provocation it's still murder, but you have a defence so you wouldnt be found guilty nevertheless the action is murder.

 

[Cown]

Yes

 

[not really ken]

Only if like 007 or some shit you have a licence to kill.

No, there's no such thing. There are some people who are constraining the large majority, but even they have no power to be able to take someones life, simply for the reason they have 'licence to murder' To have an idea like this in a society is absurd.

[/Quote]If it's self defence or provocation it's still murder, but you have a defence so you wouldnt be found guilty nevertheless the action is murder.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't be found guilty by whom? Juries that decides who had the better lawyer?

If you define both acts as murder then where do you draw the line between a lawful murder and an unlawful murder? Are the US troops in Iraq murderers?

The purpose of law is to protect the citizens of the land and if the law stops protecting them then they are aloud to break that law, because in that situation it is the law to break the law. If someone was going to murder me and I killed in self-defence, the only thing I am guilty of is abiding by the law. The act of killing was a good act .

that's the kind of protection people need in civilisation!

 

[S. Fourteen]

the question for me is - with what?

guns, poisons, cars, bury ... pretty easy.
knives, burning, drowning, choking ... pretty intense.

getting deep fried to death would be horrible. i can picture the eyeballs popping and splashing oil everywhere. ewww

 

[Amara]

No, there's no such thing. There are some people who are constraining the large majority, but even they have no power to be able to take someones life, simply for the reason they have 'licence to murder' To have an idea like this in a society is absurd.

There is such a thing. You might not like it but there is. And the example you gave - war is another. Interesting that for loser though, those same actions often turn into 'war crimes'... I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it exists.

Wouldn't be found guilty by whom? Juries that decides who had the better lawyer?

If you define both acts as murder then where do you draw the line between a lawful murder and an unlawful murder? Are the US troops in Iraq murderers?

The purpose of law is to protect the citizens of the land and if the law stops protecting them then they are aloud to break that law, because in that situation it is the law to break the law. If someone was going to murder me and I killed in self-defence, the only thing I am guilty of is abiding by the law. The act of killing was a good act .

It's not a good act, it's an excusable act. It is not a crime you can be convicted of.

If someone tries to kill you but you kill them - they have not committed murder. Only you have. The facts, even the mens rea, of a crime can be made out against you, except for the fact that a defence prevents the law deeming it so.

It's odd that you say having a licence to kill is absurb but killing in self defence is good.... they are based / grounded on the same notion: protection. Protection of the community and protection of self. Yet it's an interesting double standard you present.

 

[not really ken]

What is licence to kill? The police in the UK don't have a 'licence to kill' but they do carry guns in a raid. if they do kill someone it is always in self-defence! Yet, licence to kill insinuates somekind of power for indiscriminate killing, if is is not indiscriminate but for defence purposes then it is included as part of a lawful kill. Which I think is a rewardful act.

 

[Amara]

What is licence to kill? The police in the UK don't have a 'licence to kill' but they do carry guns in a raid. if they do kill someone it is always in self-defence! Yet, licence to kill insinuates somekind of power for indiscriminate killing, if is is not indiscriminate but for defence purposes then it is included as part of a lawful kill. Which I think is a rewardful act.

It's the limited immunity from prosecution offered to select people in the executive branches for reasons of national security. Not all police, no. Indiscriminate killing, of course not. I think it just stems from a concept that there's a greater good that needs to be protected and as such some laws should be waived in respect of some people. Naturally that's a concept that people could find objectionable and could be misused, but so could it also be used to protect the community in immeasurably positive ways.

 

[The.Menace]

I think yes, and I think at least every male is. It's somehow in us. I dunno if it's just, probablly not - but yeah, I think I got it and I really think at least every male if not every human got the ability to kill somewhere deep down in our dark soul, after all, we are nothing but animals.

 

[Dogmatic187]

I believe if it was to save my family or my life I would kill, I think I have that it me. If I knew I had to do it or I would be dead, or my sister would be dead ect. Than It wouldn't eat me up inside.

 

[Bender]

I have killed ... and I will do it again. Damn mosquitos!

 

[fields316_2000]

yes. I would feel bad, but the answer in short is yes

 

[KAMIKAZI]

If someone killed one of my family members I'd murder them with a smile on my face.

 

[Tru Principle]

If someone killed one of my family members I'd murder them with a smile on my face.

not surprising coming from a kaminazi.

 

[Sebastian]

Thats a question i cant answer.