OTOH, Peter’s first kill is a wolf. Hence his knightly name “Sir Peter Fenris Bane”.
I grant you, it is a talking wolf, but a wolf nonetheless. And was about to kill his sister.
Regards,
Shodan
Why? Why does killing of another person necessarily have to be “traumatic”? While movies and TV love to show show people (especially police and soldiers) wallowing in angst over killing others I don’t really think that’s how it plays out in the real world. If anything I would imagine children to have less angst than adults at killing as they are less morally and ethically informed.
Why does it have to be? That’s a philosophical question, that I’m not sure has any really satisfying answer. But is it, in practice? The answer to that seems to be a pretty clear “yes”. Ask any soldier, or other justified killer, about how they felt about the first time they killed.
In the book, despite actually killing more people, I thought Rynn was much more of a sympathetic character. I also didn’t like that they undid the relationship between the police officer and Mario in the film.
However, a very good set of book/film. The play is supposed to be quite good as well, but I’ve not seen it, only read the script.
Super creepy without gore or overdramatic screaming and jump-out-of-your-seat moments.
I have a feeling that particular little girl doesn’t need any therapy to deal with what she did.
Yeah, that pretty much wins the thread.
There was a discussion thread about this movie in the SDMB and I referenced Roger Ebert comments about this movie.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/reviews/100419986
As I recall, most of the reaction on the SDMB was that Roger Ebert was old fart who just doesn’t get it.
At least all of the people that Hit Girl was killing were actually bad people and Kick Ass himself seemed pretty appalled by the violence.
I am reminded of the movie, The Matrix. I was watching the DVD with a friend of mine and when we got to the lobby scene. His reaction when Neo killed the guards was that they weren’t threatening him or anything, they were just guards. I realized that Morpheus explanation of how everyone who was tied to the Matrix was a potential threat created an moral out where you could kill little old ladies or children because they were all potential threats.
Even further back, I can remember showing Castle Wolfenstein to my friend’s kids and their reaction was, “Uncle, you just shot the dogs!”. I remember in True Lies where Arnold Schwarzenegger kills a dozen guards but he only stuns the dogs.
It is possible that, much as some child victims of abuse feel much worse about it once they’re able to understand what was going on (in one case close to me, the kid used to know he got candy for doing some things he wasn’t supposed to tell about - it wasn’t until many years later that he understood the context and meaning of those things), a child killer won’t really comprehend it.
Some of the articles I’ve read on rehabilitating child soldiers and child assassins explain that part of the problem is getting them to, first, understand that killing and raping isn’t good, and then, being able to live with the understanding. Many of them have grown up in circumstances where they just can’t see why killing whomever they got pointed at could be bad: not killing the targets, on the other hand, would have been bad, as it would have gotten them or their families beaten/raped/killed or going hungry.
Are there actual studies that show the majority of soldiers are traumatised by killing the enemy? Purely anacdotal but my impression was that most trauma related to deaths of comrades or their own possible injury or death.
Even if some (many) modern, Western adults who kill suffer pangs of guilt I don’t see that this has to be the case with children. Kids are maleable - if respected authority figures - Aslan, Mother/Father, etc - say its ok, its ok.
As to whether the child grows up to be “borderline evil” and too casual about killing as an adult, surely this depends on the message the authority figure(s) put over. Massive difference between, “Killing is fun, the weak are fair game to kill if expedient” and “Killing a person is significant but may well be necessary to defend your self and others.”
Not quite the same thing, but Dick Grayson’s first appearance (where he nails a gunman in the head with a slung stone “like David fighting Goliath”) involved Batman terrifying a mobster’s underling for information, which provoked said mobster into crazedly throwing said underling off the high girders at a construction site, which Robin was in place to photograph, which Batman is on hand to gloat about: “He snapped you pushing off Blade! The film and the confession will be sent to the Governor! ‘Boss’ Zucco, your boss will be the ‘electric chair’!”
(In the next panel, we see that Zucco does in fact get found guilty of murder; in the next panel, Bruce Wayne starts off a chat with a cheerful “Well, Dick, now that your parents’ deaths have been avenged, are you going back to circus life?”)
I had forgotten about that one, which (depending on nuances in its portrayal) might indeed touch on the issue the OP is trying to address. IMHO, the rest of Dash’s “kills” do not. He was pressed absolutely as hard as one can be pressed – he had no time for contemplation or philosophy, it was literally move now or die. And he mostly just fled. Any animal or human would either have fled, or died – either one before engaging in a moral choice.
I’m trying to remember. Does Natalie Portman kill anyone in The Professional?
Mattie Ross goes after Tom Chaney, fully intending to kill him in retribution for robbing and murdering her father. Mattie is an educated Christian but has no moral quandary about her plan.
Boo Radley in To Kill A Mockingbird apparently has the mentality of a child, though the cause of it is never addressed–retardation or psychological. Either way, he kills someone who definitely needed killing.
As was pointed out, though, he arguably thought about it and made the choice beforehand. It’s not just that he first listens when his mother is laying out the gets the justification: “Remember the bad guys on those shows you used to watch on Saturday morning? Well, these guys are not like those guys. They won’t exercise restraint because you’re children. They- Will- Kill- You if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance.” It’s also that, right before going into action, he gets the reminder from his sister: “Dash, remember what mom said … Dash, run … Run!”
Dash later sums it up with a brisk: “…and those guys tried to KILL us!” I think he knew the score.
Fairly certain she didn’t. Though she did intend do, and I believe she folded when the time came.
Such a cool movie.
-Joe
Don’t think so, though IIRC she does shoot someone with the sniper rifle.
Alia kills Baron Harkonnen at the end of Dune. Mind you, she isn’t exactly a child.
Not children as such, but remember that as far back as Snow White, the evil witch queen was hounded to her death by murderous dwarves.
Doesn’t Mattie speak about bringing Chaney back for trial in Fort Smith? Certainly, she’s prepared to kill him if need be, but I don’t think she would say that she set out with the purpose of killing him.
For the record, are we restricting this to children killing human characters?
There are probably a good number of examples of clearly intelligent but non-human characters (aliens, monsters, robots, etc.) being killed by kids. But that probably deals more with issues of speciesism than the mere morality of killing…which is really more philosophically troubling, just not the same moral issue the OP is concerned with. 
IIRC, Leon trains her using paintball guns.
And given that one of the cases we’re discussing is Peter killing an intelligent wolf in Narnia, I think it’s safe to say that nonhumans are fair game for the discussion.
I call bullshit. Let’s look at the tape, about 1:58. Dash jumps off a cliff/height/whatever, grabs onto a palm tree to break his fall and hangs on for a spit sec then drops off. Then, a) a flyer slices through the palm tree, lopping off the top, then b) a second flyer, for unclear reasons, 'splodes into the base of the palm tree. Where is this the intent to kill in what Dash just did? He’s being chased, jumps on a tree, falls off, and the guy just behind him gets past and keeps chasing him. But then the guy behind that guy fucks up. How could Dash predicted or influenced that event and caused it to happen differently? He couldn’t, and his actions were not calculated to cause the death of someone.