When is the time to kill?

[Mystophilus]

If asked, most people will say that killing is Wrong. If pressed, most will admit that there are certain circumstances under which they would do it. Please answer both the poll, and the questions at the end of this scenario:

Imagine that you are in a shopping mall.
You hear a ‘clunk!’.
You look down.
On the floor beside you is an automatic pistol.
You pick it up.
It is real, it is loaded, and the safety is off.
You look up again, only to see that the guy who dropped the pistol has taken another gun out of a bag which he is carrying and, standing in the middle of the shopping mall, has begun to shoot shoppers at random. You have a clear shot, and there is a solid concrete wall behind him: you are not likely to hit anyone else.

1/ Would you shoot him?
2/ Why?
(and, if you are going to say that you would shoot him in the arm or leg, just consider how good you really are at shooting)

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Thought about the response “I’d just shoot him in the leg” but… when I have to put the gun on the screen in duckhunt to hit anything I think it’s best to fire widly and pray for the best.

If someones life is at stake, and you can save it, is it not then murder not to? It would be a horrible decision to make though.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

btw, shouldn’t this be in Moral Theology?

 

[Shlemele]

There is no option for not killing. Kill or be killed is hardly the only option in a given situation. You can come up with exsample after exsample but in the end you assume that we are both robots who will follow only one of two alternatives; kill or die. As humans we are given the ability to be rational and find resolutions that don’t involve killing.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Shlemele:

There is no option for not killing. Kill or be killed is hardly the only option in a given situation. You can come up with exsample after exsample but in the end you assume that we are both robots who will follow only one of two alternatives; kill or die. As humans we are given the ability to be rational and find resolutions that don’t involve killing.

True, we should always try to find solutions that don’t involve killing, but unfortunately sometimes it is necessary. There are people out there who will kill without a second thought and the only way to stop them is to kill them first. I’m not saying this is desirable, but realistically it happens.

 

[Shlemele]

Lady Cygnus
I understand your position and i struggle with it. My faith however does not assume that one should take a life even if his own is threatened. I say I struggle because the scenario is always thrown out if you have the ability to save other… well I hope to never be in that situation but I would rather lay my life down in place of those in harms way than kill the perpetrator. I know the condition of my soul but not his so for me it’s an upgrade.

 

[Melanie01]

Why would you kill one of God’s children? You will be held to account at Judgement!!!

That is not the same as restraining someone who is injurous to others…

Jesus died for ALL of us, how presumptious to slaughter anyone!

 

[Reepicheep]

We quote the Commandment as “Thou shalt not kill” :

I’ve read that when the Scripture was first translated into English, the word “kill” meant then what “murder” means now. That the word “slay” meant then what “kill” means now. If true, that means that the translation (in modern English) of the Commandment, was “You shall not murder”.
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

This makes sense to me in light of the fact that, over the 2000 years since Christ, the Church has not forbidden us to be soldiers, nor have Christian rulers been forbidden the use of the death penalty.

One must not lightly condone the use of violence - but we are not (absolutely) prohibited from the use of violence in defence of life against the violent.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Thought about this some more on my drive home…I will still stick to my answers.

well I hope to never be in that situation but I would rather lay my life down in place of those in harms way than kill the perpetrator. I know the condition of my soul but not his so for me it’s an upgrade.

IF laying down my life would infact save others, then I hope I would have the courage and Grace from the Lord to do so. But I envision scenarios where the killer takes my life, then the lives of even more. Or, even worse, the killer leaves me alive, takes the lives of others, then his own.

Melanie01:

Why would you kill one of God’s children? You will be held to account at Judgement!!!

Yes I will be held to account for all my sins when I appear before the Lord. However, the Lord judges based on the desires of the heart. It would seem to me that the person who “kills” someone each day in their heart out of hatred is in worse condition than someone who had to take a life out of necessity. I honestly don’t think the second case would be a sin.

I imagine that if I was in this situation I would probably relive the moment again and again - trying to find ‘a better way’. Eventually I would have to hand it over to God and confess saying “I did the best I could, forgive me if I was wrong.” Then pray for the lost soul.

 

[Della]

I don’t respond to hypothetical questions like this because such questions are of the kind that most people would never have to face. My first reaction would be to dial 911 after securing the gun. After all, most malls have security people who might not know who is the original prep and end up shooting me too. The average citizen usually doesn’t have to take the place of the police or security, so the situation is very unlikely to occur and therefore not a good one for discussing the rights and wrongs of taking human life.

The Church’s teaching on this is very clear and doesn’t need to be debated. First one should try to restrain such a person, if you are the only one there who can do it, secondly if restraining isn’t enough, if he continues to struggle and would continue to do harm to others if he got away, you should only use enough force to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Shooting someone to kill ought to be the very last resort, not the first thing you do, as the scenario laid out for us implied. And shooting to kill shouldn’t be the first priority if it would be possible to render the person unable to hurt you and others. Still, the police are trained to face such situations, and so we ought to leave it up to them before taking any actions ourselves.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ecc 3:8 “… a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”

I guess I would respond, that I hope that I would kill only when moved by the grace of God to do so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The right to self-defense is inherent in the right to life. You have no moral duty to surrender your life to an unjust attacker. In fact, if you are able, you have a duty to defend yourself.

You also have a duty to defend others – as a husband and father, you must protect your family. As a public official, you must protect the public.

And, sadly, there are circumstances where the only available defense is the use of deadly force.

 

[fix]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

**2321 **The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

 

[john_doran]

killing isn’t necessarily wrong: it’s intentional killing that is wrong, always and everywhere.

which means that “self-defense” isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either: if i defend my life by intentionally ending the life of my aggressor, then i am still guilty of murder.

 

[fix]

john doran:

killing isn’t necessarily wrong: it’s intentional killing that is wrong, always and everywhere.

which means that “self-defense” isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card, either: if i defend my life by intentionally ending the life of my aggressor, then i am still guilty of murder.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 

[contemplative]

Is somebody thinking about killing another person?

 

[Isidore_AK]

I checked all of the options. They are all reasonable.

The man would get a double-tap to start, with more coming if he was still a danger to those around him.

(Singing cadence)
2 to the body, one to the head. That’ll always make 'em dead…

And BTW, I wouldn’t need his, I’d pull mine (although its always good to have a backup gun…).

 

[Isidore_AK]

Della:

I don’t respond to hypothetical questions like this because such questions are of the kind that most people would never have to face. My first reaction would be to dial 911 after securing the gun. After all, most malls have security people who might not know who is the original prep and end up shooting me too. The average citizen usually doesn’t have to take the place of the police or security, so the situation is very unlikely to occur and therefore not a good one for discussing the rights and wrongs of taking human life.

The Church’s teaching on this is very clear and doesn’t need to be debated. First one should try to restrain such a person, if you are the only one there who can do it, secondly if restraining isn’t enough, if he continues to struggle and would continue to do harm to others if he got away, you should only use enough force to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Shooting someone to kill ought to be the very last resort, not the first thing you do, as the scenario laid out for us implied. And shooting to kill shouldn’t be the first priority if it would be possible to render the person unable to hurt you and others. Still, the police are trained to face such situations, and so we ought to leave it up to them before taking any actions ourselves.

If you are going to shoot, ALWAYS shoot to kill. There is nothing stupider than trying to wound an aggressor. It just makes them more determined to kill you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Isidore_AK:

And BTW, I wouldn’t need his, I’d pull mine (although its always good to have a backup gun…).

Yeah, I kinda wondered about this scenario where you have to depend on the bad guy to bring two guns and drop one where you can pick it up.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I always remember the old Armed Forces Viet Nam “commercials” for the Vung Tau in-country Rest and Recreation Center. They always ended with the same three words, “Bring your weapon.”

Good advice – I’ve followed it ever since.

 

[john_doran]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

i totally agree. he is only guilty of murder if he intends to deal the lethal blow.