killing someone who is trying to rob you

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that society would be better off without muggers. (...)

It disgusts me that there are so many people out there that think criminals should have more rights than law-abiding citizens.

[/ QUOTE ] I think society would be better off without moralistic "law-abiding citizens" that think they can decide who deserves to live and die. That doesn't mean I condone the killing of these people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who in your view is allowed to judge people?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know, but somebody should create a legal system or something, where individuals play various important roles, one of which is judging and deciding what happens to people. We could call them deciders.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the guy is in the act of committing a crime, and it is 100% obviously being committed, and there is NO confusion, why let the chance that the legal system will [censored] up get in the way?


Ps- im half seriousl/half not, playing devils advocate, but I just dont see the point of giving criminals leeway. I am a criminal, I just don't see the point in being a hypocrite and trying to rationalize it.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the guy is in the act of committing a crime, and it is 100% obviously being committed, and there is NO confusion, why let the chance that the legal system will [censored] up get in the way?

[/ QUOTE ] Because everyone deserves a fair trial, plenty of circumstances that you know nothing about can be present. And because armed robbery does not deserve the death penalty.

[Xizor]

I'd rather hand over some cash than kill him.
However if I felt there was a chance he'd kill me (I'll assume that most muggers just take your money and run?) I'd probably have to defend myself.

I think a more interesting question would be:

He holds you at gun point, you give him your money. He turns his back on you to run away.
You suddenly have a gun in your hand, would you kill him?

I wouldn't, but I think in general more Americans than Europeans would kill him, this is also probably what the girl was getting at.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
plenty of circumstances that you know nothing about can be present.

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering we're talking about a situation where one person is threatening another with deadly force over the money in the victim's wallet, I'd love to hear what some of these circumstances could be.

In general, I'm also in the camp that would hand over the money, but more because of what Yeti said: I have no idea whether I even could kill someone, and between [censored] it up somehow and getting killed myself, having nightmares about it, maybe going to jail, etc, I'd rather not ever find out.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
plenty of circumstances that you know nothing about can be present.

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering we're talking about a situation where one person is threatening another with deadly force over the money in the victim's wallet, I'd love to hear what some of these circumstances could be.

In general, I'm also in the camp that would hand over the money, but more because of what Yeti said: I have no idea whether I even could kill someone, and between [censored] it up somehow and getting killed myself, having nightmares about it, maybe going to jail, etc, I'd rather not ever find out.

[/ QUOTE ]


Purely hypothetically, he could have taken a scholarship away from a kid who wants to be a city planner, which would lead the kid to get caught up with the Van Buren gang, and the kid is going to seek revenge on the scholarship granter, but the grantor doesnt know the Van Burens secret hand sign and will get beat up if he doesnt mug the next person that walks by.


Im with you, the money in my wallet isnt worth the headache, but if I thought I was going to get hurt, Id do something.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that society would be better off without muggers. (...)

It disgusts me that there are so many people out there that think criminals should have more rights than law-abiding citizens.

[/ QUOTE ] I think society would be better off without moralistic "law-abiding citizens" that think they can decide who deserves to live and die. That doesn't mean I condone the killing of these people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So who in your view is allowed to judge people?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really know, but somebody should create a legal system or something, where individuals play various important roles, one of which is judging and deciding what happens to people. We could call them deciders.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the guy is in the act of committing a crime, and it is 100% obviously being committed, and there is NO confusion, why let the chance that the legal system will [censored] up get in the way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'll begin with the assumption that responsibility for making this decision rightfully falls upon the legal system. If someone disagrees with that premise, then we can't really go further.

Most of the time the legal system isn't going to [censored] up, right? If there is too high of an error rate, we fix it or replace it.

One major problem with people taking things into their own hands is that it's too easy to be mistaken, or take things too far because you're in the heat of the moment. What if a bystander witnesses this take place? It's obvious what's going on, so he could kill the mugger. But in other similar situations, it might be "obvious" but it turns out that he's just wrong. To admittedly stretch things, what if this situation is a demonstration in a self defense course, with the students being out of the bystander's viewpoint?

From an accuracy standpoint, we believe that an investigation and subsequent trial will be less prone to error than civilians acting in the moment. On top of that, we believe that due process is a right that should be granted to everyone, regardless of how obvious what the resulting outcome will be. This is one of the few cases where slippery slope arguments apply, we've seen throughout history how easy it is to abuse human rights when due process is not given.

[kordothebear]

flawless

[[Phill]]

The trouble with the OP poll is the third option of "give him all your money and there is 0% chance of being hurt" is a highly valid option.

I think that how realistic it is that the chance of injury is 0% is debatable, but then so is the 0% chance of being hurt if you try and kill the mugger.

Also, like every time the farmer guy is brought up to represent the UK legal system for home defense it is highly easy to argue it down. He killed the 16 year old kid by shooting him in the back as he fleed his property and there is evidence he not only shot him (or his friend who was also shot) but stalked them through the house before shooting them again and then a third fatal shot outside of the house.

The only cases where people have been convicted of such a crime is where force unreflective of the term 'acceptable force' is used.

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
the $100 has nothing to do with legal implications, it has to do with the fact that you might be having nighmares for the next 50 years about how you ended someones life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have nightmares, I would be happy that I did society a favor by killing a worthless leach. The world would be better without the robber.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the $100 has nothing to do with legal implications, it has to do with the fact that you might be having nighmares for the next 50 years about how you ended someones life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't have nightmares, I would be happy that I did society a favor by killing a worthless leach. The world would be better without the robber.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know how you could possibly be sure of this unless you have killed before, but whatever, its a pointless discussion.