Killing A Serial Killer

[dairygirl4u2c]

remember, 'defense of others' as a moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'.

Edited July 19, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Credo in Deum]

The way you necro post and start new threads is very inconsiderate to others.

 

 

 

Do I think you care?  No, but I just felt it needed to be said. 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[dairygirl4u2c]

The way you necro post and start new threads is very inconsiderate to others.

 

 

 

Do I think you care?  No, but I just felt it needed to be said. 

 

you are quite correct. i'm a detached, apathetic soul, with no regard for anyone else.

[blazeingstar]

There's so many goofy things about this hypothetical that I don't know where to start.

 

Why a kill shot? 

What state park can't scramble a helicopter with a heat-scanner?

Did you see him murder or are you assuming that it's the same guy?

 

 

I think that this is a truly narcissistic world, where everyone wants to be a hero.  In reality, there's no reason a citizen of America can't wait, unless a crime is actually in progress.

[Benedictus]

Maybe it's his innocent identical twin, or you need new glasses :saint2:

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is a short essay i wrote after i had time to take critiques into consideration and organize my thoughts

 

 

'defense of others' 2 limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

bob is a serial killer on the run and's shown every reason he'll continue killing. you see him by chance at a state park. a high reason to think if you try to call authorities he will get away. u have a gun- moral to kill him?

remember, 'defense of others' as a legal and moral system is often said to be only permissible if the pending harm to another is 'imminent' which usually is said to mean 'right about to occur'.
here we are talking just about morality.

all i'm trying to show is that it is *not inherently* immoral to kill him.
-I realize usually, there would usually be a lot of uncertainties that need established, the for sure ID of bob, that he was a serial killer, that he intends to kill again. but, it is possible that most of this can be known with a high degree of certitude, even 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. for example, if the man who sees bob saw him kill his brother, and neighbor, on separate occasions, and has other info on his killings, and his manifesto on future killings.
-sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done.

I realize that bob is not a jury when finding info even above and beyond 'a reasonable doubt'. but, he shouldn't need to be. the right to a jury first of all is to protect against the government, not a vigilante. and, if we rely on justice through the government to take its course, according to the hypo, there is a high probable chance bob won't get caught, and will kill again. so we see this as the necessary conclusion to someone who insists on "doing it the proper way".
is this acceptable as a necessary conclusion? no, no it's not.

 

[Benedictus]

I would say no, you aren't morally right to shoot him to death. Unless there is an immediate danger you wouldn't shoot to kill, I think that's a moral and legal framework. The aim would be to report, follow (apprehend) and or defend others reasonably. I think shooting to kill, even if he is a serial killer, is overkill. You may consider how he killed his victims: if he only killed rich elderly people in their homes at night and its daylight in a place not near homes and he doesn't seem to have a weapon you'd rethink the immediate risk. If you had to shoot at all I would say it should be clearly to defend yourself or to injure him so he could be caught.

[veritasluxmea]

Well if I see him at a state park I assume he can see me and it's somewhat isolated- I'd be scared he's coming after me next LOL. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

I would say no, you aren't morally right to shoot him to death. Unless there is an immediate danger you wouldn't shoot to kill, I think that's a moral and legal framework. The aim would be to report, follow (apprehend) and or defend others reasonably. I think shooting to kill, even if he is a serial killer, is overkill. You may consider how he killed his victims: if he only killed rich elderly people in their homes at night and its daylight in a place not near homes and he doesn't seem to have a weapon you'd rethink the immediate risk. If you had to shoot at all I would say it should be clearly to defend yourself or to injure him so he could be caught.

 

maybe that usually would be the case. but on a slim hypothetical that he was leaving on a helicopter, and you saw him rising up and leaving, and you had a gun, and could shoot him..... i don't see that as immoral to shoot him. thus allowing me to conclude that it is not at least 'inherently' immoral to kill him.

 

the best i got to say otherwise is 'inherent right to jury' 'inherent right to due process' and maybe somehting about God ordaining the government for the death penalty. (not sure it's a penalty, and already addressed the due process stuff

[Benedictus]

If he was leaving on a helicopter then he is probably well connected (so you're going to be at greater risk) or he's actually a government assassin. Either way I don't fancy your chances if you bring that gun out :disguise:

[dairygirl4u2c]

he could be speeding away in a car too. i picked helicopter to show it is very low they would catch him. but car next to an interstate and city, who knows where he'll go or what he'll do?

[dairygirl4u2c]

been thinkin about this hypo lately