shoot Hittler

[lucky4075]

Mudgely,

There is a world of difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill- theologically thats the difference between an act of self defense and murder. A cop or soldier will shoot to stop, ie they will use force until the threat is stopped. Cops shoot multiple rounds because thats often how many it takes to stop the person being a threat- especially if they are on drugs or some other substance. If they die because of their wounds, the cop or soldier is not morally guilty for their death and they did not commit murder- intentional homicide prohibited by the scripture.

As far as the morality of snipers, I’m not sure of the implications there so maybe someone else can answer that.

 

[Disinherited]

No, rather I’d do this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Though the UN is certainly no friend of God and Mary, it’d be more acceptable to bring both Hitler and Stalin to them and let them be the judges for these two bastards’ crimes against humanity.

In Kingdom Come, the Joker goes on a killing spree and kills everyone at the daily planet, including Lois Lane, Superman’s wife. Supes is sorry for the tragic killing of his wife but he still restrains his anger and not kill the Joker as that would make him just like him. As the Joker is being led to prosecution, a new superhero called Magog comes and kills the Joker. In an instance of jury nullification, Magog is acquitted for his cold-blooded act, and Superman is appalled by the public embracing a killer as a hero.

Thats my opinion. Jesus died for all and Mary became the Mother of God for ALL. She’d want to covnert Hitler yes, but that certainly doesn’t mean She doesn’t want to see justice being dealt against him. Capturing Hitler and bringing him to the UN would be a better idea then ending war by using cold blooded murder as an act of revenge. I agree that sometimes, murder is justified if it is absolutely necessry, like when a person is being held gunpoint and the only way to ensure the persons safety is to put a bullet through his head.

Beware: strong language: youtube.com/watch?v=0xG5hSOMGn0

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely,

There is a world of difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill- theologically thats the difference between an act of self defense and murder. A cop or soldier will shoot to stop, ie they will use force until the threat is stopped. Cops shoot multiple rounds because thats often how many it takes to stop the person being a threat- especially if they are on drugs or some other substance. If they die because of their wounds, the cop or soldier is not morally guilty for their death and they did not commit murder- intentional homicide prohibited by the scripture.

As far as the morality of snipers, I’m not sure of the implications there so maybe someone else can answer that.

There are some non-lethal means. It varies by area, but some cops are using them. A lot depends on public opinion. I lived in a town where the cops were trigger happy. A film crew caught a cop “stopping” and homeless intoxicated guy who was threatening the officer from 10 feet away with a wooden stick. The public outcry was enough that every cop in that town now carry tasers, and they don’t resort to killing people as frequently.

I participated as a test subject in testing some of the non-lethal methods for immobilizing a person, and for crowd control. One of the contraptions was a sound generator, which is now in use particularly on ships to keep pirates away, and others who get too close. The other was a foam which is so sticky that once it gets on you, you stick to yourself and can’t move. The only way free is to cut your clothes off. Maybe one day cops will be walking around with aerosol cans of sticky stuff.

 

[carn]

Normally we talk about self-defense, but we should talk about other-defense. If a guman is pointing a rifle to a child with the intention of killing her, if I have the possibility, no doubt I will kell him, though I am not at risk (and maybe put in risk my life!)

That distinction is less relevant in case of Hitler and the Nazi movement, as they were commiting an ongoing criminal against dozens of millions of non germans and according to german law opinion they were commiting an ongoing criminal act against every individual citizen of germany.

So plenty of people in a situation of self-defense in respect to Hitler and the nazis. Most just lacked effective weapons.

 

[msmari123]

It might be interesting to watch 180 on You Tube. It asks the exact same question of many people. The answers are very interesting. Just search for 180 on you tube, it’s about 33 minutes long, excellent.

 

[Mudgely]

It might be interesting to watch 180 on You Tube. It asks the exact same question of many people. The answers are very interesting. Just search for 180 on you tube, it’s about 33 minutes long, excellent.

Cool video. Thanks.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Now, I am thinking something.
Many people say that the 2nd amendment is to avoid tyrannical governments, which is a funny interpretation , as nothing is said like that in the 2nd amendment, it is said in docs of the Founding Fathres but not in the 2nd amendment.
Nevertheless, here, before a more than tyrannical man, there are qualms of conscience.

2nd thought: what provoked 2nd word war was the fact that the allies did not want to invade Germany as soon as Hitler want to take Czecoslovakia and Austia. Chamberlain gave in. Had they shot the guy and 80 million lives would be saved.

 

[Newbie2]

I understand the difference. But the intent of the cop and the intent of the order he was given is to save the hostage life.

As this is only possible by killing, he has an obligation to act that way.

Od dont you think the cop in this situation has an obligation to shoot?

If one has an obligation to shoot and it is guaranteed that the shot will kill, i do not know why it should not be called an obligation to kill.

The intent is the difference.

His intent is not (or should not be) to kill the bad guy. He would not be shooting at the bad guy if the bad guy wasn’t holding a hostage. He would (or should) use a non-lethal weapon if one were available. If he chose a lethal over a non-lethal method of freeing the hostage, IF a non-lethal method were possible i.e. shooting him in the hand or arm, such would be immoral.

The scenario was presented as in order to save the life of an innocent, the only way was to shoot the bad guy. Shooting him is the action. Killing him is the unintended, unavoidable side effect. This is the principle of double effect.

Having said all that, the sniper’s intent is to the kill the guy. Just ask any sniper. There is no way around that. But some law enforcement circles use the word “stop” as a euphemism for killing. They stop the criminal with lethal force. Some cops still shoot multiple shots to the torso. A shot to the head is preferred in cases such as described, and also in a situation where the suspect could be a suicide bomber with explosives on his body.

There is a moral difference in intending to kill and intending to stop, regardless of the terminology used in law enforcement. Law enforcement officers who act morally only use lethal force as the last resort.

Let’s say there was a “phaser”, like on Star Trek, where it could be set to “stun” or “kill”…and let’s say it worked at distances effectively and precisely like a sniper’s bullet. Law enforcement that set the phaser to “kill” would be doing so immorally, when “stun” would fulfill the intent, which is stopping the bad guy.

We have no such weapon at this time, therefor our proportionate response is to use a weapon which is likely and foreseeably able to kill the bad guy.

Mudgely,

There is a world of difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill- theologically thats the difference between an act of self defense and murder. A cop or soldier will shoot to stop, ie they will use force until the threat is stopped. Cops shoot multiple rounds because thats often how many it takes to stop the person being a threat- especially if they are on drugs or some other substance. If they die because of their wounds, the cop or soldier is not morally guilty for their death and they did not commit murder- intentional homicide prohibited by the scripture.

As far as the morality of snipers, I’m not sure of the implications there so maybe someone else can answer that.

Same implications, except I would imagine that the sniper’s bullet(s) are likely to cause more damage d.t. velocity, etc.

 

[Zooey]

First of all, let’s be honest: If I have Adolf Hitler in my sights, the morality of the situation is going to be something I consider** after** I shoot.
(My biggest beef with Von Stauffenburg is that he didn’t stay with that bomb, insuring that Hitler got the full blast…a killing blast).

Clearly, when this subject comes up, my ethical reasoning gets more than a little clouded…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

First of all, let’s be honest: If I have Adolf Hitler in my sights, the morality of the situation is going to be something I consider** after** I shoot.
(My biggest beef with Von Stauffenburg is that he didn’t stay with that bomb, insuring that Hitler got the full blast…a killing blast).

Clearly, when this subject comes up, my ethical reasoning gets more than a little clouded…

I another words, first you shoot then you think and debate the ethics of it. If I understood you well, I am in…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What year do I have a gun pointed at Hitler?

Before, or after the war has started?
If before, the answer is “No”. Yes, for me. It woul avoid a war.
If after, the answer is “Yes”, becuase he is a uniformed enemy combatant and also in charge of ordering invasion, territorial plunder, the denial of national soveriegnty to other countries, mass murder and a host of other things. Like the dropping of the atomic bombs later in the war, if I pulled the trigger, I’d more than likely shorten the war.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Let’s take the historical date out of the discussion, so that we go back in time knowing what we now know transpired as a result of Hitler’s behavior. Further, let’s suppose that killing Hitler does not make the situation even worse, if that were possible, as one poster suggested. And let’s also distinguish this scenario from shooting one person in a bank to save the other 99, as another poster spoke about, since in the latter situation the one person is innocent, unlike Hitler. (Or even the old moral dilemma of pressing a button and thereby killing one person to save the whole world, since that one person we kill may also be innocent.) And finally, assume it’s not a matter of direct self-defense or wartime activity as a soldier, but rather we’re a civilian time-traveler who must make a decision whether or not to alter history. Then what would people do? For myself, I would STILL have a tough time taking a human life, (you could ask somebody else to do the job. I would do for you, if I had the skills and the opportunity) even Hitler’s. However, I can certainly understand how others might choose to do so.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No, rather I’d do this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5fiC8OWSe...AAALs/HcTYkj7yZIs/s400/superman+vs+hitler.jpg

Though the UN is certainly no friend of God and Mary, it’d be more acceptable to bring both Hitler and Stalin to them and let them be the judges for these two bastards’ crimes against humanity.

In Kingdom Come, the Joker goes on a killing spree and kills everyone at the daily planet, including Lois Lane, Superman’s wife. Supes is sorry for the tragic killing of his wife but he still restrains his anger and not kill the Joker as that would make him just like him. As the Joker is being led to prosecution, a new superhero called Magog comes and kills the Joker. In an instance of jury nullification, Magog is acquitted for his cold-blooded act, and Superman is appalled by the public embracing a killer as a hero.

Thats my opinion. Jesus died for all and Mary became the Mother of God for ALL. She’d want to covnert Hitler yes, but that certainly doesn’t mean She doesn’t want to see justice being dealt against him. Capturing Hitler and bringing him to the UN would be a better idea then ending war by using cold blooded murder as an act of revenge. I agree that sometimes, murder is justified if it is absolutely necessry, like when a person is being held gunpoint and the only way to ensure the persons safety is to put a bullet through his head.

Beware: strong language: youtube.com/watch?v=0xG5hSOMGn0

I would prefer to bring Hitler and Stalin to justice dead than alive. It is more convenient !!!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That distinction is less relevant in case of Hitler and the Nazi movement, as they were commiting an ongoing criminal against dozens of millions of non germans and according to german law opinion they were commiting an ongoing criminal act against every individual citizen of germany.

So plenty of people in a situation of self-defense in respect to Hitler and the nazis. Most just lacked effective weapons.

That was an answer to the Bank robber not for Hitler.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

There are some non-lethal means. It varies by area, but some cops are using them. A lot depends on public opinion. I lived in a town where the cops were trigger happy. A film crew caught a cop “stopping” and homeless intoxicated guy who was threatening the officer from 10 feet away with a wooden stick. The public outcry was enough that every cop in that town now carry tasers, and they don’t resort to killing people as frequently.

I participated as a test subject in testing some of the non-lethal methods for immobilizing a person, and for crowd control. One of the contraptions was a sound generator, which is now in use particularly on ships to keep pirates away, and others who get too close. The other was a foam which is so sticky that once it gets on you, you stick to yourself and can’t move. The only way free is to cut your clothes off. Maybe one day cops will be walking around with aerosol cans of sticky stuff.

That is what happens with 2nd amendment. The police is “beforehand” preparing, when they arrive to the job early in the morning, that they my find guns everywhere. So, no wonder how they react.

Contradictory is a must in justice: if that movie is real, it should be shown one video showing people shooting the police.

Otherwise it is a one sided story.

Conclusion: people have machine-guns, police has got tasers!!! Funny way of thinking !

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There are some non-lethal means. It varies by area, but some cops are using them. A lot depends on public opinion. I lived in a town where the cops were trigger happy. A film crew caught a cop “stopping” and homeless intoxicated guy who was threatening the officer from 10 feet away with a wooden stick. The public outcry was enough that every cop in that town now carry tasers, and they don’t resort to killing people as frequently.

I’m afraid I see stupidity on both sides here. Trigger happy nuts shouldn’t go just shooting anyone. On the other hand, a threat should be met with an appropriate amount of force. The more dangerous they are, the more lethal. A drunk guy with a wooden stick? Simple. Knock him out. Fists aren’t just for rock-paper-scissors you know.

On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing a taser being on the same caliber as a hand gun in a gun fight.

One of the contraptions was a sound generator, which is now in use particularly on ships to keep pirates away, and others who get too close. The other was a foam which is so sticky that once it gets on you, you stick to yourself and can’t move. The only way free is to cut your clothes off. Maybe one day cops will be walking around with aerosol cans of sticky stuff.

Innovations like your foam can have a tendency to be either impractical or expensive (worse, it can be both). Furthermore, I’m not sure how a bunch of sounds is going to scare away pirates unless said pirates are stupid enough to think Godzilla is swimming under them. Can you be more precise with how it works?

 

[Mudgely]

I’m afraid I see stupidity on both sides here. Trigger happy nuts shouldn’t go just shooting anyone. On the other hand, a threat should be met with an appropriate amount of force. The more dangerous they are, the more lethal. A drunk guy with a wooden stick? Simple. Knock him out. Fists aren’t just for rock-paper-scissors you know.

On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing a taser being on the same caliber as a hand gun in a gun fight.

Innovations like your foam can have a tendency to be either impractical or expensive (worse, it can be both). Furthermore, I’m not sure how a bunch of sounds is going to scare away pirates unless said pirates are stupid enough to think Godzilla is swimming under them. Can you be more precise with how it works?

It is a directed sound energy device. I am not sure, but the sound wave may be coherent as a laser is with light. You can direct intense sound energy at a target. A Navy guy just last Saturday was telling me how effective it is to keep boats from getting too close to his ship. There was an ocean liner which used it to try to repel an attack of pirates not too long ago. The technology at lower intensity - for advertising… the message is only audible when you are near the product in the store - for music… you could listen to very high volume music and nobody else would hear it. Would not affect your neighbors.

youtube.com/watch?v=YCPhNg_t9ZE

 

[IrishSFV]

You have a gun aimed at Hittler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Would it be morally acceptable to shoot?

Let me ask you something:

Would it be morally acceptable to shoot Roosevelt (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc) and Churchill (Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, etc) ?

 

[GKC]

Let me ask you something:

Would it be morally acceptable to shoot Roosevelt (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc) and Churchill (Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, etc) ?

Roosevelt died in April 1945.

GKC

 

[IrishSFV]

Thank you. Truman.