Hero or Murderer?

Ok, I've got a question to ask. Say you're at a bank and a guy comes in and robs the bank, but while he's too busy demanding cash, you pick up a large, blunt object and you strike him in the head till he's dead only if he keeps trying to attack you. Obviously, the people in the bank would hail you as a hero. The question is, would you still be charged with murder?

Another hypothetical sitiuation, you're in school and some psychos (disgruntled kids) come in and starts shooting. You kill one of them by slitting his throat with scissors and take his gun. You kill the other guy by shooting him. You help escort the victims armed with the disgruntled kids' weapons. So, pretty much you save the day. Would you still be charged with murderering the two disgruntled kids?

I know I wouldn't be able to do what I just said above. Pulling off some kind of act of heroism in those situations, but I've been thinking about this for a while. There are people who want to try and be a hero during some kind of crisis, but they can't obviously for the reason that they could die. Could another reason be that they can go to jail for killing a bad person who's intentions were to hurt/kill as many people as they can?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm not sure if this would be better in Political, since it really boils down to a question of the justice system.

Yes, you're still going to be tried for murder. But will you get off, or have a very reduced sentence? Depends on the jury, probably, and how good your lawyers are, and if you're justified in killing them instead of just forcibly restraining them. Why kill someone if you can just disable them?

It sounds kind of like you're just trying to find a situation where it's socially acceptable to murder someone, and if that's your motivation, I'd suggest joining the military.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I would definitely kill the person if I ever could muster the courage to grab the chance at such a daring action.

I think I'd be scared out of my mind that I wouldn't restrain the person enough and that they would escape somehow, even if they are unconscious for a while. I'm not taking the chance that he wakes up, escapes from being caught, and we're all worse off since we've let our guard down and he's pissed.

I think that you would have a reduced sentence, with justification: "I acted out of desperation. He looked like he would overpower me."

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Wouldn't this all fall under "self defense"?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yes, you'll be charged with murder. It's not self-defense anymore once the assailant is down and no longer able to hurt you. If you go out of your way to beat him senseless and he ends up dying, you'll probably end up serving some prison time even with a sympathetic jury. Still, it is likely the prison term will be reduced due to mitigating circumstances such as your good intent.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Lizardcommando

Ok, I've got a question to ask. Say you're at a bank and a guy comes in and robs the bank, but while he's too busy demanding cash, you pick up a large, blunt object and you strike him in the head and you beat him till he's dead. Obviously, the people in the bank would hail you as a hero. The question is, would you still be charged with murder?

Yes, and rightfully so. The guy is here for the money, and doesn't give a flying fuck about you as long as you don't get in the way. So it's not like your life (or anyone's) is at stake. At that point you're pretty much killing him for attempting to steal money.

Besides, assuming you want to play hero, grab a large object and strike him in the head as you said, why do you have to fucking beat him dead? A single strong hit in the head will knock unconscious any grown man, and give you all the time you need to remove his weapon, restrain him and call the authorities. I wonder what kind of looks you'd get from the people in the bank if you kept hitting the guy like a maniac after he fell on to the ground.

I doubt you'd be hailed as a hero anyway. Most banks have an insurance that covers such odds; so, from the average customer's standpoint, neither their lives nor their money is actually threatened, and you're fucking crazy for risking everyone's lives over such a trivial matter.

Quote:

Another hypothetical sitiuation, you're in school and some psychos (disgruntled kids) come in and starts shooting. You kill one of them by slitting his throat with scissors and take his gun. You kill the other guy by shooting him. You help escort the victims armed with the disgruntled kids' weapons. So, pretty much you save the day. Would you still be charged with murderering the two disgruntled kids?

Different issue. Lives are threatened here, so legitimate defense can be invoked. You might also be able to claim that killing them was an unintended consequence of your trying to protect yourself and the people around you. Not sure how the law works there, but if some people can get away with shooting burglars who break into their houses, then I'm sure you can get away with that.

Most amazing jew boots

When I said beat him till he's dead, I mean that only if he keeps trying to attack me or something. If he's down in one hit, you'd probably want to secure the guy and then call the cops.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by ^___^

A single strong hit in the head will knock unconscious any grown man, and give you all the time you need to remove his weapon, restrain him and call the authorities.

That's a myth perpetuated by the movies. My skull has taken a pounding with a a blunt instrument on several occasions. Most of them were accidental, one was a deliberate act of violence. While I can safely say that I was disoriented in all cases, I was never rendered unconscious. On the occasion that it was an act of violence, I retained sufficient presence of mind to be able to hit my assailant back a few times, and then to walk home afterwards.

It's a total myth.

Most amazing jew boots

I think it's self defense. The robber comes marching in and threatens everyone's life. Though, his intent to kill may not be true, but he carries key things: A Weapon and the know how. With those 2 elements, he is a potential threat, especially equipped with a weapon.

Now, the law may dictate that it would be murder by the victim. But what's going to stop the victim from pleading innocence with something like this:

"What am I supposed to do, sit around and wait for the police? This man eyed me straight in the eye several times, I felt like I was the main target here. I don't know if it was my haircut or suede shoes that caught his attention, but I was certain he'd come after me next, as soon as he was finished scrounging enough money from the counter."

Sure the court could respond like this:

"Sir, your actions may have stoped any further danger this time, but your actions also proposed potential danger to everyone else. What if you were to have failed in stopping this man? He could be armed with a grenade or a small automatic machine gun. Everyone else would be in greater danger if you manage to provoke further ill-intent than he had originally planned. I don't know what self defense knowledge you possess, or what media you've seen, but in situations such as this, which obviously are incoherrent with a job that of a automobile salesman, would require someone with a much more extensive amount of knowledge."


But not to fear, lying can be good:

"Well, the man assaulting this bank clearly couldn't have had any other devices on him. He banged that sack around a few times on the counter's front side panel. And with everyone around me quieted by this man's presence, I could easily observe this bag is very much empty. But, let's look at it this way, if I were a bank robber, it would have to take quite a bit of guts from me to go in with the idea of robbing the facility. Now, here I am going in alone with perhaps a real weapon. At some point before the event, I must of thought about having something to defend myself. Killing potential harmless people would waste my time and delay me further as well as waste ammunition. I can take them out on the way out, but I need to be fast and speedy to avoid authorities. But, what if I get caught? If I get caught without injuring anyone, I could very well be sent to jail and released 8 years later. If I get caught with 6 deaths on my record, I might get a life sentence, or death penalty. If someone is going to rob a bank, you know the robber must of thought about some plan for now and later. But as I first observed this man, he showed no sign of a learned person or having the mindset to make such plans. Clearly, he would not of expected a surprise attack from the audience. He was panicked a little, you could see the worry in his face, yet fueled by testosterone with enough madness to stare me down several times. I wasn't going to let him touch me and I can't do anything about the other people's lives. But if I can stop him, maybe I can save the lives of other people at other banks. It would be nice if there weren't any worry or risk of losing certain people through our actions, but we can't have everything we want. Just look at this bank robbery, how on Earth did he get through undected? Banks want the best security their money can buy and only to get results like this. By failing to stop this man from entering, it is the bank who placed everyone's lives at stake. How dare they open business and tell us to come and place our lives in danger? With faulty security like that, I'm more than afraid to do buisiness again with this particular bank branch."

Of course, this is just one particular case or view to look at. There are multiple ways of manipulating a jury's thinking. They are the sort of people who've "heard it all before," but if you are charged with murder, it wouldn't hurt to try.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think if the robber was holding a gun and shooting people will I think it sufficient to resort to self defense. If my life is at stake, it would seem reasonable to attack the attacker. Imagine 9/11 - who gives a rat's ass about a terrorist (or mass murderer) to just sit there and idle? I wouldn't feel remorse shooting at someone who is shooting 100 other innocents.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SemperFidelis

Yes, you'll be charged with murder. It's not self-defense anymore once the assailant is down and no longer able to hurt you. If you go out of your way to beat him senseless and he ends up dying, you'll probably end up serving some prison time even with a sympathetic jury. Still, it is likely the prison term will be reduced due to mitigating circumstances such as your good intent.

This is why many Martial Arts classes teach students how to grapple (sp?). Once you are able to restrain/keep the person from harming you, then anything you do afterwards turns from defense to offense.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That's a myth perpetuated by the movies. My skull has taken a pounding with a a blunt instrument on several occasions. Most of them were accidental, one was a deliberate act of violence. While I can safely say that I was disoriented in all cases, I was never rendered unconscious. On the occasion that it was an act of violence, I retained sufficient presence of mind to be able to hit my assailant back a few times, and then to walk home afterwards.

It's a total myth.

I agree, unless you hit one of the few regions on the head that could not only knock someone out instantly, but kill them. However, you would have to know the exact spots and blunt objects would have a hard time fitting some of the regions (but there are some that can be reached easily).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

You didn't need to beat him in the motherfucking head until he was dead. You did that on your own, and yea, for not being able to control yourself, you should be punished.

All you needed to do is to whack him in the head enough to confuse him, or possibly knock him out. That would probably be no more than 2 hits.

Self defense isn't going to the extent of MURDER unless necessary. And its not necessary to be killing people over a robbery.

And I know my region wouldn't hail a person who killed a robber.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Visavi

This is why many Martial Arts classes teach students how to grapple (sp?). Once you are able to restrain/keep the person from harming you, then anything you do afterwards turns from defense to offense.

They teach grappling because you're more likely to get caught up in a close-range fight than one where you can do all the fancy punches and kicks.

I was speaking idiomatically.

That sounds like a really bad Law and Order episode.

Quote:

In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which is traditionally termed "malice aforethought". In attempted murder, the mens rea requirement, Latin for "guilty mind", is limited.

I'd think something like that, if the DA wants to, would charge you with manslaughter rather than murder. They'd consider mitigating circumstances, like the robbery and such but it doesn't excuse an unnecessary death. And along the lines of Quiet Place conversation, you'd have to live with the moral guilt of killing someone, especially when it could have been prevented.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

They teach grappling because you're more likely to get caught up in a close-range fight than one where you can do all the fancy punches and kicks.

That's true as well. Either way, as long as the locks and holds are taught and learned correctly, there is a better chance of being able to restrain the criminal without becoming the aggressor.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Soluzar

That's a myth perpetuated by the movies. My skull has taken a pounding with a a blunt instrument on several occasions. Most of them were accidental, one was a deliberate act of violence. While I can safely say that I was disoriented in all cases, I was never rendered unconscious. On the occasion that it was an act of violence, I retained sufficient presence of mind to be able to hit my assailant back a few times, and then to walk home afterwards.

It's a total myth.

You're full of shit. I've watched people get knocked out by a single punch; you just have to be lucky or know what you're doing. Just because you personally haven't ever been knocked out by a blow to the head doesn't mean it's impossible.

How ya doing, buddy?

I tink you'll be a murderer not a hero if you killed the guy by bashing his head in... perhaps knocking him out wud be better... no point killing him since that's gonna get you into hot soup....

and slitting another kids throat with a pair of scissors and then getting his gun and shooting the other psychos... tat sounds more like what a psycho would do... no? perhaps trying to reason things out with them wud be better? or stay out of the way and get help from the police or sumtin... it's murder either way, wether you save the others or not... cos' u murdered unnecessarily...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by nadienne

You're full of shit. I've watched people get knocked out by a single punch; you just have to be lucky or know what you're doing. Just because you personally haven't ever been knocked out by a blow to the head doesn't mean it's impossible.

I think he was using his anecdotal evidence against face's claim of "A single strong hit in the head will knock unconscious any grown man..." So, like, saying that one hit to the head isn't a guaranteed KO.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I think he was using his anecdotal evidence against face's claim of "A single strong hit in the head will knock unconscious any grown man..." So, like, saying that one hit to the head isn't a guaranteed KO.

Yes. The myth is that it always happens. In truth, it's not always the case that you get knocked out. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. It's the luck of the draw. Personally, I seem to be blessed with thick skull. In more ways than one, some would say.

Originally Posted by nadienne

You're full of shit. I've watched people get knocked out by a single punch; you just have to be lucky or know what you're doing. Just because you personally haven't ever been knocked out by a blow to the head doesn't mean it's impossible.

I'd agree that a single punch can knock someone out, but it has to be properly placed. It's not guaranteed that you can knock someone out with a single blow to the top of the skull, but if you were to hit someone with your fist, on the Jawbone, that's a different matter. It's about the weak spots, and even if you hit someone in their vulnerable spot, it just isn't guaranteed.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Okay, perhaps I went a bit far in my claims (although it would work on me for certain >_>). The point remains, though, that by taking them by surprise you're guaranteed a significant advantage, which should enable you to restrain the person without killing them. This "beat him until he's dead" crap is just nonsense.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ok, for the last time, what I meant the "beat him till he's dead" part by that if he keeps trying to attack you. Remember those key words.

I forgot to mention that in the first post, yeah I know... It's been fixed now so NO ONE should get that part confused and misinterpret it.

Originally Posted by rachelle

and slitting another kids throat with a pair of scissors and then getting his gun and shooting the other psychos... tat sounds more like what a psycho would do... no? perhaps trying to reason things out with them wud be better? or stay out of the way and get help from the police or sumtin... it's murder either way, wether you save the others or not... cos' u murdered unnecessarily...

Reasoning things out with a gun toting psycho kid would probably get you killed faster than if you and some strong people overpower him.

Let's take a certain school shooting for example. These two kids are obviously hellbent on killing as many people as they can. They aren't going to feel mercy for their actions. They'll kill anyone they see. You're hiding in a library along with some other people. One of the crazed gun men goes in and starts killing people. You're hiding under a table and the gun men sees your hiding behind a counter. You have an opportunity to take him down, but you don't since you think the police are coming to save the day. But obviously not since the gunman kills your best friend/girlfriend/boyfriend/etc. Wouldn't that eat you up for the rest of your life if you didn't do ANYTHING to save him/her, even though you had a perfect opportunity? I sure as hell would feel guilty for not doing anything to stop that from happening. Why the hell should it matter if you kill someone or hurt them if THEIR intention was to kill and hurt as many people as they can?

Just out of curiousity though, would this whole situation be considered as vigilantism, seeing as you are taking the law into your own hand and stopping a criminal?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Lizardcommando

Ok, for the last time, what I meant the "beat him till he's dead" part by that if he keeps trying to attack you. Remember those key words.

Or you could beat him until he's senseless enough to disarm or restrain him. Do you think you'll be fighting against a PCP-fuelled maniac?

lol, drug boogeymen

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Lizardcommando

Just out of curiousity though, would this whole situation be considered as vigilantism, seeing as you are taking the law into your own hand and stopping a criminal?

It absolutely would, and moreover, is a good example of why vigilantism is a bad thing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Lizardcommando, bringing up all these hypothetical situations is not going to result in a blanket, "Yes, it is okay to kill someone" statement, which I think you are trying to get us at saying. Your bank situation is not considered life threatening in my opinion, not as life threatening as a school shooter, and I don't believe there is a reason to kill a robber unless he's shooting at you.

If the school shooter is a terrorist, yes, you should probably kill him. Happy?

FELIPE NO

Lol drug boogeymen. That's sounds funny.

So, in conclusion, vigilantism is bad no matter what. Ok, case closed.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Every jurisdiction is a little different, but...


You can use as much force as is necessary in self defence. Basically, if a guy is standing on the other side of the room with a knife and talking like he'll kill you, you can't shoot him. But if he charges you with the knife, then he could be conceivably be getting in range to do bodily harm and he seems to have hostile intent, so now you can shoot him. You can intervene to save a bystander under the same logic.

So I think you are safe enough to kill in the school shooting case, as long as you're reasonably sure everyone you kill is a danger to the safety of yourself or other students. You couldn't hurt someone who surrendered or gave you no reason to expect trouble from.

In the bank case, now that you've added say "you hit him in the head ONLY IF HE KEEPS ATTACKING YOU" you should be ok. If a robber is attacking you you're allowed to hit back, and if you kill him by accident you'll probably get off alright. Especially if you have all these witnesses seeing you being attacked and you did nothing to provoke it. But you can't attack an unarmed robber or beat to death an unconscious one.

If the robber hasn't harmed anyone and seems to be willing to leave if given the money, I believe you have to let him go. You can't attack him because you "were scared he might turn violent" - he has to give you some additional reason to expect violence.

You could always try a citizen's arrest first, btw. Unfortunately, I doubt that'll work too well.

How ya doing, buddy?