Well, you already know what I think. But to be brief: IMO it wouldn’t be ethical to kill him, for me, even if he had killed everyone instead of torturing them.
I knew I could count on you to be rational enough to call a spade a spade, anyway.
Question, though. You and I agree that the plan presented in the OP is flat-out, premeditated murder (though we may disagree on whether there’s malice). But how far are you going on your “no killing” rule. That is, do you object to someone shooting a criminal who is in the very act of committing a murder – say literally about to sink a knife into an innocent’s throat?
ETA: Incidentally, it’s not the seriousness of the crime that’s at issue here, I think–at least, not simply that. It’s the impossibility of stopping him another way. If the guy had been on a killing spree instead of a torturing spree, it wouldn’t be allowable under my ethical system to summarily kill him unless no alternative would prevent an imminent additional murder, or his escape.
But this guy is a frequent flier. He’s done the same thing every week for the last year. There is no real doubt about his intent, thus I have no qualms about taking him out.
:: shrugs ::
You know I think the guy has to be killed. I’m just saying it’s still legally murder (though I’d be open to being proved wrong).
I don’t see it as murder. I see it as a justifiable use of force to prevent serious bodily injury to an innocent party. Really think my police sniper analogy is appropriate here. We know, if not stopped, this guy will harm innocents. We have the present ability to stop that from happening, and as a bonus, there is no risk of collateral damage beyond blood splatter. Arguably, it would be unethical not to intervene under the circumstances.
The problem with giving the police shoot to kill orders is the uncertainty of who they might shoot or such person’s guilt. Skald, in this case you’ve removed those concerns, this guy deserves it, it’s the only solution, and it’s a very unique circumstance.
For once I agree completely with TriPolar. Killing the guy immediately, when he’s not in the process of entering someone’s home, would be murder (albeit justifiable). Killing him when he’s shown up to torture more people - I don’t see how that’s anything other than self defense. Skald, would you still consider it murder in a more mundane situation where, say, a guy who’s threatened to kill his ex-wife breaks into her house with a gun, and she shoots first?
You know I think Roddenberry should be killed, right?
That said, when you phrase it that way, I do see killing him as more like self-defense than murder. The plan in the OP is a bit more cold-blooded than the the ex-husband situation, though, as the victims are not believed to be in danger of death and the person pulling the trigger is in no peril at all.
Right. I’m just quibbling with your use of the word murder.
The distinction here is that legally and IMHO morally you don’t have to be explicitly in danger of death to employ lethal force to protect yourself. Danger of torture or severe assault is enough. And in real life it’s quite likely that torture, etc. is going to end in death - the distinction you’re trying to make between the two just really doesn’t exist.
In my mind and I believe in the way US law is written, you can take the same action to defend someone else that you can take to defend yourself. Self defense and defense of another are legally (and IMHO morally) identical. So your situation is a bit more cold-blooded than my ex-husband scenario, but all the same elements are there. I don’t think there’s nearly enough of a difference to call one murder and not the other.
I began to reply that Roddenberry goes out of his way to keep his victims alive, but I’m not gonna, because you’re right.
You’re apparently arguing, according to later posts, that it’s legally murder. I’m not sure that’s true.
Consider my previous example of the purple-wigged clown who rapes people. If I saw that person climbing into my neighbor’s window, I believe I’d be justified in shooting him if there were no other reasonable alternative. A somewhat sketchy cite:
This matches things I’m finding elsewhere. If I have real reason to believe that Roddenberry is about to commit a severe crime, I can act.
A couple of things:
First, I think that killing Roddenberry is murder the way that assassinating General Yamamoto during World War II was murder. It has most of the characteristics of the crime, but the unusual circumstances justify it.
Second, I think you’d be on shakier ground legally and morally killing your purple-haired clown than the police would be in killing Roddenberry. Purple wigs aren’t nearly as exotic an item as the teleporter gizmo. The clown could be just an idiot kid, after all.
Yay, I won an argument on the internet! 
I guess my definition of murder is ‘killing someone when it’s not legally or morally justified’. If killing Roddenberry is justified, it’s not murder. And I’m not going to slap someone with the label of murderer when their actions were justified - that’s what the term justifiable homicide is for. I think there are situations where killing someone is not quite justified, but it’s still the lesser of two evils and I might very well go for it, which are far more interesting.
I think my stance on this is evolving - it’s OK…-ish for someone else to do that, as long as they’re of the considered opinion that defensive killing is moral. I’m still not happy about it, I wouldn’t do it myself, but a moral stance that doesn’t at least acknowledge that people differ strongly in their view of defensive violence would be far too rigid, I think. But I’m still not comfortable with me directly providing the tools for them to do this, hence my answer to the OP. If the cops had their own Roddenberry-killer-device, they can do what they like with it, but that wasn’t your hypothetical, which involved some action on my part.
Choice 3 but effectively choice 1.
You have outlined a situation wherein the quickest and most effective way to stop his harassment of his victims is incidentally lethal. It is responsible to take this course in the absence of a non-lethal course of action, and to take him out as soon as possible.
So if you have another option available to be implemented as quickly, you may feel free to take it, thus allowing the Roddenberry to be pumped for information by scientists and the like. Since you apparently don’t, it is responsible to use your lethal method ASAP.
And since he has pretty much ended several lives already, we can say that he’s crossed the threshold of being a threat to human life, if you care about that sort of thing.
I agree with Oakminster here.
Your projection of finding and implementing a non-lethal response in a month or so is speculative and fraught with unknown variables. You can say, “Well, he’ll only torture about a dozen more people, probably.” Or you can use your tech to let the police act like police and use the available tools to stop him.
If he were merely a burglar, I might be loathe to kill him. But again, he seems to be trying to cause suicidal PTSD. He’s damn near a murderer himself.
Look, I highly doubt that there is some innocent guy [or gal] running around with the same tech implanted. The kill switch can only affect the person who has been stepping outside of the social contract we currently have [follow the laws and you will be safe and protected] and substituting the old laws [I will do as I will, and you can try and stop me otherwise I will do what I will to you and your family]
Reverting to the old social contract [protect and keep your own, as I will do as I will] allows us to protect ourselves. In this instance, it means using the tech that allows us to strike him back as he attacks us.
Justify it legally, you mean? Because as I understand it, there’s no such thing, legally speaking, as justified murder. At the point that it’s justified, it’s no longer murder. That’s part of the definition.
I agree, and my suspicion that killing the purple-haired clown would be considered justified makes me much more confident that killing Roddenberry would be justified.
The guy should be killed for lack of imagination. Seriously, the guy has a “personal transporter implanted in his brain” and all he does with it is carry out home invasions for the reason of giving pain.
We don’t know that, as we don’t even know Roddenberry’s real name, address, etc. He may well be using the teleporter for other purposes.
No, I mean justify it morally. And, yes, legally justified murder is a contradiction in terms.