Question on Vigilantism

[fakename]

Is it okay to protect a person who is about to be killed by killing the killer?

I don’t think this is “self-defense” but other people have said it is good and it certainly seems at least useful.

2ndly Why is it that sinners can only be killed by public officials? I think it is because only public officials can intend the killing as a means to the commonweal but, it seems that anyone can kill with the motive of advancing the commonweal additionally, what is to be done when the public officials are corrupt? I think that some sort of dramatic change and if need be, rebellion is justified.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It might be good to read on prudential judgment which seems to the issue you ask of. Killing to save lives can occur, immanent threat is general recognized. However all such actions are prudential judgments. For example a year or two back a man killed a doctor in church because the doctor performed abortions. This was an immanent danger in the mind of the killer however the action may have only served to have future abortions performed by a different doctor. In the second half of your question I think you are jumping to capital punishment not self defense. Capital punishment is entrusted to JUST civil authority which should carry less emotion and more knowledge of the danger, as well as more knowledge of alternative methods to protect society of the danger. In closing it seems the reference is just war? In just war you’ll find that the authority must restrict vital rights to obtain the immoral status needed to justify taking up arms. Also notice that a reasonably probable of success is needed, or said another way you are not to waste your life.

In summary it seem three different subjects are at play here self defense, capital punishment, and just war. All three involve killing. All three echo the standard of killing is the last resort.

 

[TheDoctor]

Is it okay to protect a person who is about to be killed by killing the killer?

It depends if there are no other alternatives and if the person doing the killing is doing so against the law. For example, if I am driving home and observe someone who may be drunk running cars off the road, I cannot run them off the road to try to save others as I do have reasonable alternatives. In the same vein, you cannot kill the prison guard about to pull the switch as they are doing what the law allows them to do. If someone breaks into my house however and points a gun at my child, they may get to meet Jesus immediately with a 158grain JHP invitation.

2ndly Why is it that sinners can only be killed by public officials?

Public officials kill sinners and non-sinners alike because that is what the law allows them to do.

I think it is because only public officials can intend the killing as a means to the commonweal but, it seems that anyone can kill with the motive of advancing the commonweal additionally, what is to be done when the public officials are corrupt?

This is why we have a series of checks and balances. Even then, the innocent are sometimes wrongly killed however in the vast majority of cases the system works. That is not to say that the loss of one innocent life is anything less than a horrible tragedy.

I think that some sort of dramatic change and if need be, rebellion is justified.

I think that you have not thought read enough or thought enough on this subject.

Reread Texas Roofer’s post and if you a hung up on the commandment, remember that the commandment is more properly translated as “thou shalt not murder” rather than “thou shalt not kill”.