What are the legal and illegal ways to intentionally kill another human being?

[wez]

The title says it all...

 

 

I think there is no truly "legal" way, as Jesus's law would see it. Which I believe what he spoke about were the natural laws that come from within that can guide a person to a fullfilling life of happiness.

 

The Man "legal" and "illegal" ways, especially in the cases of war, are highly flawed and subjective to lean towards the Man with the bigger and better guns, in my opinion.

 

In the case of self defense, I would trust my instincts. I'm not sure what I would do. I really would just be wanting to get away and out of danger I think.

 

 

What does everyone see as "legal" and "illegal" when it comes to intentionally taking the life of another human being?

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

The title says it all...

 

 

I think there is no truly "legal" way, as Jesus's law would see it. Which I believe what he spoke about were the natural laws that come from within that can guide a person to a fullfilling life of happiness.

 

The Man "legal" and "illegal" ways, especially in the cases of war, are highly flawed and subjective to lean towards the Man with the bigger and better guns, in my opinion.

 

In the case of self defense, I would trust my instincts. I'm not sure what I would do. I really would just be wanting to get away and out of danger I think.

 

 

What does everyone see as "legal" and "illegal" when it comes to intentionally taking the life of another human being?

 

Something that interests me is this : people are routinely killed deliberately in hospitals.

 

When we get cancer it starts to get painful. They start you off on regular painkillers, then move you on to cocaine. Eventually you end up needing something more powerful, that's when you progress to morphine. Before long you are on diamorphine- heroin. At this point the end is not far away I'm guessing.

 

The patient begins to build a tolerance to heroin and needs increasing doses to stop the pain. But at a certain point, the dose will kill. The medics know this. Yet that fatal dose will be administered in an attempt to alleviate pain even though they know that it will probably kill. If that dosed does not, then the next increase will probably do the trick.

 

I'm guessing that people nowadays do not die of cancer, but a heroin overdose. I could be wrong of course.

 

Now, if you know that your actions are likely to kill, but do it anyway, and it does kill, is that not murder ?

 

A humanitarian would call it assisted suicide. But here in the UK this is a crime still. No matter, it goes on all the time surely. The police must just turn a blind-eye to it.

[timesjoke]

Now, if you know that your actions are likely to kill, but do it anyway, and it does kill, is that not murder ?

 

Some would say so but then enters the complications, what if your actions are to save your own life, or the life of another, that is not murder, that is self defense.

 

The thing that bothers me is we talk of a few thousand deaths here and there like about 17,000 murder deaths a year (off the top of my head, not sure of the exact amount) in America but we had over 1.4 million (yes million) abortions in America last year.

 

 

Funny how some claim to care about life in one way when it is only a few thousand while we dispose of life by the millions without any real concern in another way.

[phreakwars]

This=Illegal:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0]YouTube - Man Kills 2 on Neighbor's Land[/ame]

.

.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Some would say so but then enters the complications, what if your actions are to save your own life, or the life of another, that is not murder, that is self defense.

 

I agree TJ. I think we have a right to kill in defence of life and property, and that of our friends and neighbour- even strangers. If some scumbag ends up dead, I'm calling that a bonus. If you end a turds life who was never going to do anything more than kill,rape,mug, steal, sell drugs and burglarise, then I think the guy who switched the turd off should get a medal for outstanding public duty.

 

The thing that bothers me is we talk of a few thousand deaths here and there like about 17,000 murder deaths a year (off the top of my head, not sure of the exact amount) in America but we had over 1.4 million (yes million) abortions in America last year.

 

Thats just awful. That's way too many. I can accept a need to terminate after say, a rape. And also where the mothers life is in danger, and also where the unborn will have a major heritable illness. There may be other examples. But mostly, I am against termination.

 

Here's another reason why not to. Its not always good for the woman either. A friend of mine had a termination. Shortly afterwards she developed Schizophrenia. She is guilt ridden to this day. I spoke of this to someone a long time ago at uni. I was then told that that person also know someone who had also developed mental ill health after having a termination.

 

Why don't people just use a condom ? Why spend a lifetime with the knowledge that one is complicit in foeticide ? Yet in this country, some people have several abortions. I could never bear that on my conscience. I would do anything to make her think again if it were my kid. I'd bring the kid up alone. Anything but kill the kid.

[ImWithStupid]

I agree TJ. I think we have a right to kill in defence of life and property, and that of our friends and neighbour- even strangers.

 

 

 

I see no point, in modern times, where there is reason to kill in defense of property. I should be able to kill you because you are stealing my tv? I don't think so.

[eddo]

I see no point, in modern times, where there is reason to kill in defense of property. I should be able to kill you because you are stealing my tv? I don't think so.

 

I have to agree. Defense of property is not (or should not be, if it is somewhere) a viable reason to kill someone.

[hugo]

It should be an individual choice rather or not you shoot someone stealing your property.

[ImWithStupid]

It should be an individual choice rather are not you shoot someone stealing your property.

 

Stuff is stuff. It can be replaced or lived without. It isn't worth a life. Even the life of a thieving scumbag.

[Old Salt]

Exactly, IWS. I have told my family members that if someone tries to steal their purse, let them have it. I'd rather have my wife and daughters alive and well than injured, with the purse and its contents in hand. Credit cards can be stopped, IDs can be replaced and so can money. And they can always buy more makeup.

[hugo]

The fact is the police cannot be everywhere. Here they had 5 minutes warning and still did not get there. Were they even sent out? The fear of citizen resistance is a greater deterrent than the probability of getting arrested. The man was well within his rights under Texas law. Stealing your property is stealing a chunk of your life.

 

A thieving scumbag has negative worth. The nickle in my pocket is worth more than a thief's life.

[ImWithStupid]

The fact is the police cannot be everywhere. Here they had 5 minutes warning and still did not get there. Were they even sent out? The fear of citizen resistance is a greater deterrent than the probability of getting arrested. The man was well within his rights under Texas law. Stealing your property is stealing a chunk of your life.

 

A thieving scumbag has negative worth. The nickle in my pocket is worth more than a thief's life.

 

Actually, if you listen to the entire 911 call, there were officers, in plain clothes, in the area waiting to take them down when they tried to leave.

 

After he shot the guys, he ran back in his house, and the operator told him that. He went outside and the plain clothed officers were there.

[hugo]

Actually, if you listen to the entire 911 call, there were officers, in plain clothes, in the area waiting to take them down when they tried to leave.

 

After he shot the guys, he ran back in his house, and the operator told him that. He went outside and the plain clothed officers were there.

 

They acted a bit late. The dispatcher never told the hero that there were plainclothes officers until after the deed was done. I don't think there were plainclothes officers on site. I think the dispatcher was lying to hero Joe.

[ImWithStupid]

They acted a bit late. The dispatcher never told the hero that there were plainclothes officers until after the deed was done. I don't think there were plainclothes officers on site. I think the dispatcher was lying to hero Joe.

 

 

That's why the operator told him to put the gun down so he doesn't shoot an officer and when he went back outside you can hear the officers telling him to get on the ground.

 

I think you have a bit of a Texan bias here.

[hugo]

That's why the operator told him to put the gun down so he doesn't shoot an officer and when he went back outside you can hear the officers telling him to get on the ground.

 

I think you have a bit of a Texan bias here.

 

Hero Joe requests officers be sent after he shot the scumbags. It appears the officers got there about a minute after the shooting.

[ImWithStupid]

Hero Joe requests officers be sent after he shot the scumbags. It appears the officers got there about a minute after the shooting.

 

If plain clothes officers were there, it would probably by because, they were waiting to apprehend them, by surprise, when it was safest for both the officers and the bad guys. That way nobody had to be shot. I would be willing to bet that the uniformed cops in the marked cars were held back to avoid a barricaded stand off. They wanted them outside where they were vulnerable.

 

Again. You obviously just want to see this one possible way and not be open to either possibility of anything else, and in this case probability that this guy didn't make the right choice.

[hugo]

If plain clothes officers were there, it would probably by because, they were waiting to apprehend them, by surprise, when it was safest for both the officers and the bad guys. That way nobody had to be shot. I would be willing to bet that the uniformed cops in the marked cars were held back to avoid a barricaded stand off. They wanted them outside where they were vulnerable.

 

Again. You obviously just want to see this one possible way and not be open to either possibility of anything else, and in this case probability that this guy didn't make the right choice.

 

 

Then it was pretty damn stupid for the dispatcher not to tell Joe that. Having formerly lived in Pasadena it would have been a better than expected response time if they had several plainclothes officers within five minutes. You did not hear anyone yelling for Joe to stop shooting. Nor did the dispatcher mention officers on site until after the shooting.

[snafu]

Then it was pretty damn stupid for the dispatcher not to tell Joe that. Having formerly lived in Pasadena it would have been a better than expected response time if they had several plainclothes officers within five minutes. You did not hear anyone yelling for Joe to stop shooting. Nor did the dispatcher mention officers on site until after the shooting.

 

Nope first you hear Joe call 911 and explain the buglrary. Next you hear Joe say I got a shotgun, do you want me to go over and stop them? You then hear the 911 operator say "Nope. There's nothing worth shooting anyone over" Then you hear Joe say like "Where are the cops? They need to hurry or I'm gonna kill these guys". Joe wanted to drop those two criminals. In the back of Joe's mind was "I get to kill someone Yuk Yuk". Whether the cops where there or they just arrived minutes before Joe took two life's.

[snafu]

I sleep with a loaded 45 under my bed. I'm not gonna shot someone robbing me. I will ask him to leave. And he will one way or another. But thats self defense.

[hugo]

The fact is that under Texas Law Joe had a perfect right to do what he did. This ain't no damn criminal coddling liberal state.

[ImWithStupid]

Then it was pretty damn stupid for the dispatcher not to tell Joe that. Having formerly lived in Pasadena it would have been a better than expected response time if they had several plainclothes officers within five minutes. You did not hear anyone yelling for Joe to stop shooting. Nor did the dispatcher mention officers on site until after the shooting.

 

If you check it out, there was only about 20 seconds between the last shot and when he got back in his house and on the phone to talk to the 911 operator, and in that conversation the operator told him that there were plain clothes officers in the area and less than 60 seconds until the guy went back outside and the uniformed officers came to the scene to confront him.

 

If I was in plain clothes and some jack@ss came out shooting people with a shotgun, I don't think I would jump out from my hiding spot, hoping the moron realized I was identifying myself as a cop, before shooting me too. I'd wait for a uniformed officer to make that confrontation so there wasn't any misunderstanding.

 

I also think the guy lost any self defense claim when before going outside, he said he was going to kill them.

[ImWithStupid]

The fact is that under Texas Law Joe had a perfect right to do what he did. This ain't no damn criminal coddling liberal state.

 

There are parts of the law that your site that you quoted left out of the Texas statute that could play a part here too.

 

Like the part where one of the elements justifying lethal force for protecting property, the person must believe that there is no other way this crime would be stopped. He was told repeatedly that officers were on their way.

[phreakwars]

To me, it even sounded like the guy was TAUNTING the dispatcher with his intent to "DEFEND HIS NEIGHBORS HOME". He said thing's like "You hear that, that's my shotgun" and another point to be made here is that you can CLEARLY hear the guy... That's a pretty damn good signal from a cell phone I'd say.

 

Watch the news stories on this where they show the houses. It almost seems to me the guy WANTED to let the dispatcher hear him shoot them.. I'm not talking about the sound of the gun firing, but the other noises.

 

And another thing, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Texan law covers protecting your neighbors things.

 

This person, IMHO showed a premeditated intention to kill, and should be given the chair.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

And another thing, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that Texan law covers protecting your neighbors things.

 

Actually it does. Texans are a different breed. They truly still believe that it is 1885, and frontier justice should still apply.

 

? 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in

lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is

justified in using force against another when and to the degree the

actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to

prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful

interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,

movable property by another is justified in using force against the

other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force

is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the

property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit

after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no

claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using

force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

 

 

? 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is

justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or

tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the

other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the

deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of

arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the

nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing

immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated

robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the

property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or

recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to

protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or

another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,

1994.

 

 

? 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person

is justified in using force or deadly force against another to

protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,

under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the

actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force

or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful

interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or

criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection

of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third

person's land or property; or

© the third person whose land or property he

uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,

or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, ? 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, ? 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

 

My contention is that, just because you are legally able to kill someone, doesn't mean that it is always the best choice.

 

If the police shot someone every time they were justified to do so, there would be a criminal killed at least once a day in every major city, and many smaller jurisdictions also.

[hugo]

If the police shot someone every time they were justified to do so, there would be a criminal killed at least once a day in every major city, and many smaller jurisdictions also.

 

What would be wrong with that? I suggest people respect other peoples lives and property.