Well I don't want to hijack the Taiwan thread, but I think this is worthy of discussion.

To quote Vibes (Whom I'm making the assumption is Ytrok back again)
Maybe we all use different reasons to kill, that does not mean that our killing is more valid then theirs .. Killing never is In the Taiwan thread I brought up the example, well what if someone broke into my home and threatened my family with a weapon?

Now I'm geussing by his response, he meant to ask if I understood what he said, not that I understood the right to defend my home and family.

So, for me the times when it's justified to take another human life, are few, but sadly not too uncommon.

As in my example would be one case, in defense of my family, and self.

If someone threatened my religious freedoms, not talking David Koresh style here, I mean if they suddenly started wiping everyone out who went to my chucrch (which has happened before)

In defense of others freedom, be it in a foreign land or here at home, freedom from oppression (real oppression, not just a government you don't like cause they won't let you smoke weed). Is something everyone on Earth deserves.

In defense of any of my patients, rule number one (well maybe not #1 per se but..) don't ever get between a medic, and his guys, it'll make a mother bear and her cubs look tame.

Or premptively, to prevent further death of innocents even though it may mean some more will die in the short term, if more will live free and alive in the long term. I.E. Iraq

There are a few other examples I could throw out there, but this covers most of them, just curious how others feel, because it seems to me, that there are people out there that semm to think you hsould never kill anyone, even in self defense. When given the choice or kill or be killed, they prefer to die, thinking it's somehow more noble to die.

But let me tell you, when real lead starts flying all that philisophical bullshit goes right out the window.

Dear Elemak:

Yes, I'm guessing Vibes (as in VibesJoker) is Ytrok :).
Hmm, you travel from the personal to the abstract in your situations/justifications, but I'll try to address your issue as best I can. When is it permissable to take another human life?

If you mean physical combat to defend ones self/family, by hand or weapon, for me, the answer would seem to be never - my 'fight or flight' response just doesn't seem to be wired that way. I've had lethal force (i.e. a handgun, I've been threatened with less lethal means as well) pointed at me twice in my life, and both times talked my attacker out of using it. Sometimes the word is mightier than the sword so to speak I guess :), although I enjoyed fencing, target shooting, and aikido when I was physically capable of doing them. I've also stopped two violent crimes in progress without the use of physical violence. I'm afraid you'd have to put me firmly in the 'nonviolent resistance is its own substantial force' camp, and if I ever run into someone who can't be caught/taken off guard and persuaded or dominated, or truly feels that they have nothing to lose or is capable of dehumanizing their enemy, I imagine I'll be hosed (laughs lightly). Would I 'prefer' to die? Probably not :). Am I capable of/willing to undertake physical violence of the lethal variety? As least so far as I have been physically or psychologically tested, apparently not (although had a situation arisen while I was serving in the Air Force some 20 years ago, requiring the use of force in the defense of myself or my country, I would have upheld my oath to the best of my ability).

Do I have a problem with someone else (not me) taking a human life in response to an immediate personal threat? None whatsoever. As far as your other scenarios go...

I think in all such cases one has to weigh the costs of taking potentially lethal action versus the potential outcomes, and make sure that all nonviolent means have been exhausted first. There's plenty of evidence that such appeals can be effective (sometimes drawing the world's attention to such an abuse is sufficient to shame the perpetrators into changing their behavior - South Africa being a case in point, the civil rights activists in this country marching in the face of police dogs and fire hoses being trained on them, or the image of the young man standing in front of the tanks in Tianamen square), but in cases of religious or ethnic genocide, I think it's appropriate to step in with force if necessary to prevent such assuming that the response is taken in a timely manner to the immediate threat, targeted to the immediate threat and not unnecessarily broadened, that national sovereignty is not violated more than absolutely necessary, and that a diplomatic solution is sought as soon as possible. Would I engage in nonviolent action, including protecting refugees, or putting my body in harms way, to protest such human rights violations? You betcha, if I were in a position to do so and it were a cause I believed in. Would I take up arms? See above - for some folks, the pen, or the word, or the symbol, is the sword.

Is it appropriate for us to use force against another sovereign nation simply because we don't like their system of government (assuming that genocide isn't in the picture)? I'd have to say, as much as I am glad that I live in a democracy, emphatically no. It is one thing for us to encourage democracy in other countries with the carrot and stick (treaties/embargoes etc), for the UN to provide observers for elections, etc, and another thing entirely for us to decide we have a 'mission' to spread democracy around the world at the end of a gun - the end simply doesn't justify the means. As much as we might like the world to be comprised of a collection of free nations, we simply don't have the right to violate the sovereignty of other countries just for the hell of it, and keep in mind that not a few non-democracies around the world are happy with their governmental structure, and so are the majority of their citizens - the several Middle Eastern constitutional monarchies, for example, and modern Vietnam which is a Communist hybrid state. If that nation is threatening other sovereign nations, or committing genocide against one or more of its own religious/ethnic groups, then that is another matter and the costs of military action vs inaction/nonviolent action should be carefully weighed and consensus reached by the international community before action is taken, if possible.

Is it a good idea to maintain a well-prepared military to be ready to act to prevent abuses, assuming that action needs to be taken? Absolutely... I was always told that was what the adage 'walk softly and carry a big stick' meant. As for the other, more subtle abuses of civil and human rights perpetrated against citizens by their governments, that is what the international community (UN observers, etc), and organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc, are for - to document such abuses and to bring them to the attention of the international community so that nonviolent pressure can be brought to bear before we think about the last resort option of sending troops in.

This has gone on far too long (as usual :) ), and I'm way behind on my grading, but it'll be interesting to see what sort of can of worms ends up getting opened up here.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

The subject of the thread is what constitutes a justified killing.

This is probably one of the most subjective questions I can imagine being asked.
Everyone has their own specific frame of reference with which they view and interact with the world around them; my frame of reference is affected by the events in my history, among them serving in Viet Nam, working at the state prison running a treatment program, working for the government as a postal employee, raising a daughter and son, having grandchildren, etc.
Here are my thoughts on justified killing:

1. The terrorists who crashed planes into the towers and pentagon deserve death, along with anyone connected in any way with planning or carrying out the attacks.

2. The people involved involved in planning and carrying out the attack on the school in Russia deserve death.

3. Those who repeatedly molest and/or kidnap and/or kill children should forfeit their lives. Their is no "proven" methodology for treating these offenders to date, and I do not believe any child's future should be gambled with by allowing these predators back into society, nor do I believe that the citizens of any state should be required to pay for their indefinate incarceration at the rates it costs these days.

4. Anyone who conspires against this country with it's enemies in such a manner as to endanger life and/or cause the death of any American citizen should forfeit their life.

5. Anyone involved in the wilful act of terrorism resulting in the death of one or more innocent civilians should forfeit his or her own life.

6. Anyone attempting to cause you or your loved ones physical harm must be stopped in the fastest and most complete manner available, meaning that you stop their efforts and ensure that they will be unable to resume the efforts; if that can be accomplished by breaking a limb or rendering them unconscious that is preferable, but yours and your loved one's lives are the priority.


I think the above may be just the type of can of worms Nydia was waiting to see. :p

I am sure many will disagree, and some might agree partially, but this is as honest an answer as I can give to the original question. I have been in the unenviable position of ending someone's life, and I know the emotional and mental impacts that can have, so I do not give the reasons above lightly. I also will agree that there will always be exceptions, based on mitigating circumstances.

Yes, I'm guessing Vibes (as in VibesJoker) is Ytrok It's not that hard if you can just follow the link :)

Let's take the last post shall we.

1. The terrorists who crashed planes into the towers and pentagon deserve death, along with anyone connected in any way with planning or carrying out the attacks. If you want to kill all who are involved, you may need to start killing officials in your own government. That is ofcourse if you would want to understand the reasons why these people carried out these attacks.
Trying to get everyone in the chain of agression will result in you ending with taking your own life, since all events on this planet are connected.

2. The people involved involved in planning and carrying out the attack on the school in Russia deserve death. Same thing ... Everyone is involved, from the Terrorist, to the russian government to the West to your house. When russia invaded their home country they searched for ways to retalliate. Kinda like Elmanak stating he would kill the people attacking his church. Same as the US attacking Iraq and taking innocent lifes because someone might attack them. Another endless spiral.

3. Those who repeatedly molest and/or kidnap and/or kill children should forfeit their lives. Their is no "proven" methodology for treating these offenders to date, and I do not believe any child's future should be gambled with by allowing these predators back into society, nor do I believe that the citizens of any state should be required to pay for their indefinate incarceration at the rates it costs these days. These are people with mental issues. You can ofcourse kill them and deal with the problem that way, you could also try and see what is wrong with them and work to a way where they can be removed from being able to harm others without the need to kill them.

4. Anyone who conspires against this country with it's enemies in such a manner as to endanger life and/or cause the death of any American citizen should forfeit their life. And so should they feel ever American should get shot for taking their peoples lifes and homes and country. This will never resolve anything. Killing never resolves anything and neither does hate. If you feel that the solution to protect your home is killing people who may be a threat, you will find yourself dead some day by someone who figured you were a threat to him.

5. Anyone involved in the wilful act of terrorism resulting in the death of one or more innocent civilians should forfeit his or her own life. So what would you call US bombing a school, innocent victims in a war they didn't want forced upon them by a nation that had and still has nothing to do with them. Yes ... to them you are surely terrorists.

6. Anyone attempting to cause you or your loved ones physical harm must be stopped in the fastest and most complete manner available, meaning that you stop their efforts and ensure that they will be unable to resume the efforts; if that can be accomplished by breaking a limb or rendering them unconscious that is preferable, but yours and your loved one's lives are the priority. Tough one .. Would I want to kill the person who shoots my kids? Defenatly... No doubt that there would be so much hate in me that if I would have a gun in my hand I would most likely pull the trigger. But that would be wrong, being lead by hate is wrong and inflicting pain on others because I lack the capacity to control my mind is wrong. That will never take away that we are human and that humans often react due to their emotions. But that does not mean that the killing is right, it is just as wrong, how right it may seem.

It's quite simple:

Deadly force is appropriate in case of imminent major bodily harm or death to yourself or others.

That is just the standard personal level of course, if we were to talk about larger groups or countries it'd differ.