Well I think that there are way too many “bad” people to kill them all. You guys mentioned Ted Bundy and Son of Sam- there have been several serial killers. What I mean is, what does it really matter if you were to go back and time and kill an infant Bundy, or Hitler- either way someone else is going to come along and start killing and injuring innocent people…you know?
Mofo- what’s the name of that short story? I wanna read it…
Wildest Bill,
It’s rather unlikely, but suppose you are out hunting with your rifle, and you see a murder. You shoot the killer. Just then a cop drives by. He sees you kill. Should he shoot you?
If you kill enough of these people, would you be a serial killer? More seriously, would it affect you?
If I had the chance, would I arrest these people? Sure.
—>what a depressing idea… “well, I could have administed some life saving first aid to this critically injured person… but either way hundreds of thousands of people die every day… you know?”
as I said in my previous post, killing a young Hitler is a tangled web, but if you can stop a single serial killer, that’s 10 to 50 young people who aren’t going to die. It’s not like some other serial killer is just going to come along and kill those same 10 to 50 people… nor is it the case that that other serial killer would have chosen not to do any killing as long as Ted Bundy was carrying the load for the serial killers of the world…
(of course, this is all in the cut and dried black and white world of the kill-the-baby-Ted-Bundy-or-do-nothing-at-all question)
Sorry, don’t remember the name, author, or anthology it appeared in.
**Wildest Bill wrote:
What about this scenerio. Say you saw Ted Bundy strangle the life out of a girl and started running away then would you shoot em or wound em? After all you saw him do it why should we waste time on a trial?**
Depending on the situation…1) if I was carrying a gun with me and 2) if I was a good enough shot to simply wound him rather than kill him outright, I’d simply wound him.
Sorry WB, I simply don’t have the right, except in the most dire situations, to play judge, jury and executioner to people I see commit horrific crimes.
You mentioned that this poor hypothetical woman didn’t get a trial. Agreed, she died a terrible death. But killing her killer is simply an act of vengence, that doesn’t make it right. Two wrongs don’t make a right. No matter how horrific the crime, the defendent still has the right to a trail to prove his innocence.
I’d suggest you go and read more about the history of the legal system for western civilization, especially what was practiced by the nobility of Europe just prior to the Enlightenment period. Also try reading about why the various amendments were put into the Bill of Rights, like trial by jury, ability for non-self-incrimination, etc.
About this “poor hypothetical woman.” Well no one’s said anything about the victim. What if the victim killed by the serial murderer was a horrible inhumane person? What if this hypothetical victim was a murderer, rapist, child abuser- whatever? Would that make it any different, or would you still be justified in killing the original killer?
I wouldn’t kill HItler.
I’d sew him and Mengele together.
I wouldn’t just because I don’t know if I can. It isn’t a question of feeling justified or whether the person in question deserved it. Some people just don’t have it in them to take another’s life. I don’t think I do in a situation as I’ve heard described above. As others have said, in self-defense or defense of another, I may be able to. But to take someone out in cold blood because you feel justified that they deserve it? That’s an entirely different question and I don’t think I could.
To borrow a line from Clint Easteood in Unforgiven: “It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he has and all he’ll ever have.” I don’t think I could do that, not in cold blood.
It’s just a matter of conscience.
I’m with Crunchy.
I mean, personally, I think that to kill Hitler would make me just a little more like him. Yes, I would think I was justified, but so did Hitler in killing the people he did.
No one ever thinks of themself as evil…
So I wouldn’t be able to, because I would be allowing myself to become LIKE Hitler. If that makes sense.
Well, because 1) you’d be convicted…period. Yes, a jury would convict you, and here’s why. If you easily got off by killing people you saw kill another person, what’s to stop anyone from killing a person, bringing them to a trail, waiting for another person to walk by, then shooting them, saying “I saw that person kill this person, so I shot them!” Wow…instant double murder, and no real way to prove otherwise. Sure, you could go through a trial, but it’s much easier to slink away, call the cops, and let them know who you saw, and where the body is. They’ll handle it, catch the guy (it’s pretty hard to screw this up unless the guy splits for some other country within a few minutes of you seeing him.) and put him on trial. With your eyewitness testimony and the evidence, he’d be convicted for sure.
Jman
Very true.
Look at Jack Ruby
Well, goddamn, I guess I’m the only amoral bastard on this board (with the possible exception of gunslinger, and don’t take that the wrong way, guy). And, mind you, that’s AMORAL, not IMMORAL. I don’t go out of my way to hurt people; in fact, I’m actually one of the nicest guys on a personal basis you’ll ever meet. Just ask any of the girls who never went out with me 
Frankly, all these hypothetical is it wrong/right, what might be the future outcome, how do you really know what just happened, etc. etc. questions just don’t affect me in the least. If I see someone commit a murder, if I know they’re inherently a bad person, hell if I think the classic “reasonable person” (under American law) would believe they probably ought to go, I’d off 'em. Period. No shoot-to-wound; down they go.
With only one caveat: what might happen to me, personally, in the aftermath. But I’ll get back to that.
See, with me, the whole gist of it is that I just don’t have this belief in the “sanctity of life” that everyone does. I guess I’m not a humanist, or something. Frankly, folks, the earth’s gonna keep on spinning, regardless. Thousands of people are born everyday to replace each one that Bundy murders, and I don’t think any one of them are worth getting heated up over.
A lot of this casualness, this willingness to take a life, may result from never having done it. I’ve never offed anyone, probably never will. Maybe the actual act would change my mind and outlook, turn me into a whole different creature. Then again, maybe it wouldn’t. Hell, I’m at the end of several years’ service in the US military, whose whole job is killing, and providing support services for same.
I don’t believe in God/Allah/Buddha/the afterlife, what have you. I don’t even place a lot of stock in my own self-worth. If the world at large decides that my taking this theoretical life, or even my attitude about it all, merits me being the next one in the chair, so be it. Just make it quick.
And that’s what I was getting at earlier, about the aftermath for me. Assuming I’m caught, which I’ll do my best not to be, just don’t draw it out and make me suffer. Don’t leave me pining away in a jail cell for years! I’ll plead guilty if you want me to, just f***ing do it QUICK, please! For once! I had a friend with what I thought was an excellent plan for this: “Death row” should be just that - a row, a line of people standing in the hallway, leading up to the chair. And you push the button for the guy in front of you. One last thrill for the confirmed nutcase killers in the line <ducks>.
So, for you people who seem on the fence, where’s the bright red line? At what point do you make the decision to kill the killer? Try this scenario: you, and several other people, have been kidnapped and held against your will by the Bundy-prototype. Over a period of days, while making you watch, he has ritually and very painfully murdered each of them, while playing with and eating the body parts. He’s made it perfectly clear that it’s happened before, and will again. That he has contacts within the law to avoid arrest, and an air-tight, totally mendacious, and infuriating legal loophole defense which will put him back on the street in months to continue his hobby. Is that enough? Do you do him now, given the opportunity and ability to make it swift and painless for him? Where’s the line?
Oh, and BTW, Guinastasia, I don’t see your point about Ruby. He performed his act in a very public place, with plenty of armed gendarmerie around, on film even. That’s a whole lot different than Jman’s single report about a guy seen in the woods. And, frankly Jman, I think your faith in the legal system a little unfounded. People get away all the time, and get off on technicalities if caught.
Okay, enough rant. Thank you for your time. And please, don’t send the cops after me yet, OK? 
sigh
I meant, he killed someone who HAD killed someone else.
Also, when we said, how these killings might affect the future, we were saying, IF you could go back in TIME and do this, knowing what this person was going to do, would you?
Obviously you didn’t read the fucking question!
:rolleyes:
Obviously, you didn’t read my f*$&ing answer. Otherwise you might have noted a VERY WIDE latitude for readiness to kill someone. Back in time, right now, baby, all grown up, before, after… makes no difference to me.
And I stand by my submission that Ruby’s case is not a good example of those proposed by Jman or Wildest Bill. They’re talking about your word against his, more or less.
And, frankly, the “going back in time” issue was NOT what was originally posted. In fact, each of Bill’s examples demonstrate that you’d seen the crime yourself and THEN wrought the retributions.
So :rolleyes: right back atcha!
FI, we really should go out dancing sometime.
Hitler- Don’t think I would kill him, just on the fact that although it was a horrible crime, I don’t think Hitler was the sole reason it occured, was he in part responsible of course he was, but he couldn’t have done it alone.
Serial Killers- Yes, why would I have any remorse for killing someone who kills someone else for their own sick gratification. You can go into your speeches about the justice system and fair trial, I don’t care, I would not hold one ounce of guilt over killing someone like that, as a matter of fact I would prefer torture as opposed to killing. You can only die once, but pain can be much more frightning than death.
Would you kill Bundy knowing you would be caught, convicted, and gassed afterwards? Is his death worth your life? I don’t think so. Dying to kill him would just chalk another kill up behind his name. I don’t want that. I would trap him, I would wound him enough to keep him from assaulting me, and I would gloat as the police drag his living body off in chains, but I would not myself commit homicide. I have to live with myself, after all, and I won’t give him the satisfaction of killing me.
Azargoth - do you see no contradiction in this? You’d prefer to torture someone, because pain can be much more frightening than death. This sounds pretty much like doing something for your own sick gratification. That’s why there is the need for the justice system, and a fair trial - or you’d be no different from the original killer.
I disagree. Sometimes I think the death is to easy for these wacko killers. What if you imposed a law that serial killers would not only be put to death but tortured the same way they tortured their victoms before you kill’em. I think this would be a HUGE deterrent to such hanius(sp) crime.
I think they do that in Saudi Arabia.