if you had to choose between saving a real killer such as the one here, or saving a murder convict who's guilty of a "lesser" crime and/or who may even be innocent, if you had to save only one of these two, you saying you would hesitate?
I can guess what you're about to say next, but let me just say this: such an occurrence is extremely rare, and doesn't provide for anything like the death penalty, or for shooting someone breaking into your property. I can be all philosophical about morality and the ethics of killing an attacker or not, but realistically speaking, if your life is about to be taken, then you're going to have an over-encompassing urge to preserve your life. It's basic, animalistic instinct, and one which you cannot philosophy away. Capital punishment, however, isn't a decision you have to make in a split-second.
k so what about defending someone else then?
(same scenario only it ain't your life but a friend or relative or something)
for self defensive purposes I think the idea is to use only what force is necessary to neutralize the aggressor as a threat.......such force doesn't necessarily have to result in the death of the aggressor though it might be called for if a kill shot/blow is the only thing that will neutralize the aggressor (an example of this would be if the aggressor in question is fraked up on crack.....if that's the case it's very likely the aggressor isn't gonna register any shot/blow other than the one that kills him as crack blocks a lot of pain receptors)
Last edited by mad_gater; April 16th, 2012 at 01:17 PM.
I think that of the people on death row who actually are guilty of the horrific crime their accused of most are extremely damaged individuals and should be treated (in a secure facility) and not punished untill they pose no or very little threat to the public for how ever long it takes. I just think people who commit such horrendous crimes are abnormal and need dealing with and not just put in prison and have the key thrown away.