Thread: Would You Accept a Murderer?

If they killed someone for a good reason, then I would probably accept them. However, if they were a serial killer, or just killed on a random impulse, then I would probably not accept them.

I would never reject them. I believe all that is harmful comes from either lack of knowledge, fear, or mental issues. Calling it evil I consider as well the consequence of either lack of knowledge, fear, or mental issue!

How would I react, that I don't know for sure, it depends on absolutely every factor of the situation. But I know I wouldn't turn my back on the person I loved couple of minutes before.

Originally Posted by Luanne

I would never reject them. I believe all that is harmful comes from either lack of knowledge, fear, or mental issues. Calling it evil I consider as well the consequence of either lack of knowledge, fear, or mental issue!

It's good that so many people consider it "evil". That puts such a bad stigma on people who murder that it prevents a lot of murder from happening. Society should passionately reject people who murder. The rejection serves a great purpose.

There are some people I will love no matter what, but that does not mean they will be my friends no matter what. I can't be friends with somebody who ever murdered without just cause. That does not mean I would completely not care about them, though.

I can say there is only one person I think I would not reject if they murdered without a cause. For others it depends on the circumstances of the murder, excluding murder for self defense, that I would accept.

We seems to praise soldiers. They are murderers. Same with politicians, although its more indirect.

Who praises soldiers? Not around here we don't, they get the same amount of respect as the people who ran the war.

And it depends on why they did the murder. If it was the father from "A Time to Kill," then of course I would. Murder is sometimes just, most of the time it isn't.

Depends on who they killed and why.

Murder implies a sense of wrong doing, so it may depend on the situation but in most cases, I would reject them. If you kill someone you shouldn't hide it. If it was just, such as in self defense, then there is no reason to hide it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's good that so many people consider it "evil". That puts such a bad stigma on people who murder that it prevents a lot of murder from happening.

It's good that murder is considered 'bad'. But the word 'evil' and the often religious, excessive meaning behind it, has the complete opposite effect than what you're saying. And I'm not just talking about murders. Because it is 'evil' there is no point in providing help and education. Because it is 'evil' our anger toward the 'evil person' grows and all we think about is revenge. Because it is 'evil' we don't want any good to that person, cause they don't deserve it! It's excessive, it is wrong and it puts, like you said, a bad stigma. But it seems we have different views on what that particular bad stigma does.

There are some people I will love no matter what, but that does not mean they will be my friends no matter what. I can't be friends with somebody who ever murdered without just cause. That does not mean I would completely not care about them, though.

I agree on this. I don't know whether I would be able to stay close friends with that certain person. All I know, I wouldn't turn my back on them, I would try to understand (not to approve) why they did it, and I certainly wouldn't consider them 'evil'.

And the question of just cause is so complex, especially considering we would be extremely emotional and shaken in that situation, it could easily mess our rational thinking.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

We seems to praise soldiers. They are murderers. Same with politicians, although its more indirect.

Only when we think what they did was for the greater good. Sometimes not fighting would result in a whole lot more death than fighting. What if Hitler had been ignored?

Originally Posted by Luanne

It's good that murder is considered 'bad'. But the word 'evil' and the often religious, excessive meaning behind it, has the complete opposite effect than what you're saying. And I'm not just talking about murders. Because it is 'evil' there is no point in providing help and education. Because it is 'evil' our anger toward the 'evil person' grows and all we think about is revenge. Because it is 'evil' we don't want any good to that person, cause they don't deserve it! It's excessive, it is wrong and it puts, like you said, a bad stigma. But it seems we have different views on what that particular bad stigma does.

I don't want unjustifiable killers to have help and education. I want them dead or at least miserable. They alienated my support by doing what they did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Only when we think what they did was for the greater good. Sometimes not fighting would result in a whole lot more death than fighting. What if Hitler had been ignored?

Godwin's Law has been achieved

Murder can only be justified in self-defense.

It would depend on several factors:

Why did they kill someone? Self-defense is kosher, but premeditated murder costs a few style points. Reasons for heat-of-the-moment killings come into play, too.
Who did they kill? Was it someone who had it coming, or some poor, innocent schmuck?
Do they have any long-term mental health conditions, or have any present scenarios caused some wiring to otherwise pop loose?
How did they kill the person? Humanely or through long, drawn-out torture?

Overall, probably not, except for self-defense and heat-of-the-moment with good justification, or if they killed someone who truly deserved it.

There are more justifications than self-defense. I believe revenge is justified in extraordinary cases. Some people simply must die.

There was a case a while back where a father discovered that his kid's karate instructor was molesting him. One morning, as the molestor was walking out of his school, the father pulled a gun on him and shot him dead. He remains a convicted murderer, but the judge granted extreme leniency in sentencing, and the father walks the street today.

Of course, there are the obvious problems of one person playing judge, jury, and executioner. Hence, why people should not just be shooting each other over everything. Now, I may not agree with what this father did...but I can certainly understand why he did it.

Originally Posted by mini0991

Some people simply must die.

.

Originally Posted by mini0991

There was a case a while back where a father discovered that his kid's karate instructor was molesting him. One morning, as the molestor was walking out of his school, the father pulled a gun on him and shot him dead. He remains a convicted murderer, but the judge granted extreme leniency in sentencing, and the father walks the street today.

That is defense in case of the child. Unwanted aggression was enacted, defense was used. I would consider that self-defense, in a way.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

That is defense in case of the child. Unwanted aggression was enacted, defense was used. I would consider that self-defense, in a way.

That's pretty much my point.

There are natural consequences for every action. Harming someone's kid and having the parent come after you is one of those natural consequences. You have every right to impose those natural consequences.

And Mario...you're telling me child molesters deserve to live? I think lethal injection is too kind.

I'm agreeing with you, Mini. If it was me, I'd bash their skulls in with blunt objects.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Only when we think what they did was for the greater good. Sometimes not fighting would result in a whole lot more death than fighting. What if Hitler had been ignored?

I suppose. If there were any competent assassins back then Hilter would have died way before America had to intervene. If Hitler alone died the whole thing would have crumbled very quickly after that.

So what about the case where the murder isn't justified by some means? Say a scenario like Mr. Brooks. For those who haven't seen the movie, he kills people because he feels like he's addicted to murder.

Your loved one comes to you asking for help with their addiction. Will you help them? How?

Originally Posted by Vampyre

So what about the case where the murder isn't justified by some means? Say a scenario like Mr. Brooks. For those who haven't seen the movie, he kills people because he feels like he's addicted to murder.

Your loved one comes to you asking for help with their addiction. Will you help them? How?

I would disown his ass, change my name, and move far, far away.

I would first find a shrink, a nice padded room somewhere, and a plane ticket, so I could send him to beautiful Hawaii. Then I change my name and move far, far away.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

So what about the case where the murder isn't justified by some means? Say a scenario like Mr. Brooks. For those who haven't seen the movie, he kills people because he feels like he's addicted to murder.

Your loved one comes to you asking for help with their addiction. Will you help them? How?

Absolutely not. Such a scenario would necessitate lifelong psychiatric treatment ala John Hinkley.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Godwin's Law has been achieved

A fact has been stated and a counterargument has been invited.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Murder can only be justified in self-defense.

If it's self-defense, it's not murder. Also, self-defense has to sometimes be preemptive. And how about the defense of others? If you shoot somebody for trying to kill your son, are you out of line because it was not self-defense? What if you are saving a stranger?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

I suppose. If there were any competent assassins back then Hilter would have died way before America had to intervene. If Hitler alone died the whole thing would have crumbled very quickly after that.

I think that might be true. Some leaders are heads of snakes that will die if the head is cut off. That was the case with Hitler. Nazi rule collapsed in a hurry after Hitler committed suicide. I also wonder what would have happened if Saddam Hussein and his two sons were killed instead of a war being fought.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Who praises soldiers? Not around here we don't, they get the same amount of respect as the people who ran the war.

Im not sure what you mean by this.

anyways, most people have said it already. self defense, etc. I would not reject them. If it was on impulse...I would still care for them but I would want them to seek help.

Well, it's difficult to predict, really, as it's an emotional response. However:
I would be able to accept killing in self defence or the defence of others, due to mental illness of some sort and maybe if someone really had it coming. I don't think I could accept a cold blooded murder as easily as a "spur of the moment" thing. I don't think I would have been able to accept someone killing a child under any circumstances.