Which best serves society

[Guest Peeves]

If a person is being murdered, which choice best serves society?

Killing the attacker?

Arresting the attacker?

Scenario.

An attacker is murdering a person with a machete in big town USA a citzen or three pull their guns and shoot him dead.

OR

An attacker is attacking a person with a machete in big town U.K. people take pictures for 15 minutes so the attacker can be identified,then he is arrested (if still on scene.) He 'might' go after others when finished butchering, how does one know?

Obviously if captured the attacker can questioned and the root causes of their violence might be examined in order to prevent further mayhem of the sort. It's good to know what is the trigger.

Obviously if shot dead no questioning may be ppossible, but the victim just might live and further murderers prevented.

If questioned others in a cell of like minded radicalized fanatics may be exposed.

If shot dead, one could only suspect friends,any fundamental religious and social affiliations, family the computer/mail/etc.

I say shoot to kill and pursue evidence as in any other case, since I think I know the root cause.

[segnosaur]

Obviously if captured the attacker can questioned and the root causes of their violence might be examined in order to prevent further mayhem of the sort. It's good to know what is the trigger.

While I don't deny knowing the "trigger" or underlying causes would be valuable, I think it could be argued that either:

- Such cases would be common enough and you would have plenty of opportunity to study other individuals who weren't killed

- Such cases are extremely rare, and whatever the 'trigger' is, it would not be applicable to other people

If questioned others in a cell of like minded radicalized fanatics may be exposed. If shot dead, one could only suspect friends,any fundamental religious and social affiliations, family the computer/mail/etc.

Of course, the fact is, people lie. Even if the guy was questioned, would you really trust what they say? Remember, Ted Bundy (while on death row) suggested an addiction to pornography was the cause of his tendencies as a serial killer; this is generally seen as a false attempt to gain sympathy.

[The_Squid]

Neither serves society. If someone needs to be killed defending one's life, so be it. If they can be arrested, great. It's whatever the circumstances dictate....

And implying that this couldn't happen in the USA due to the proliferation of guns and everyone is looking out for one another's well being there, while the UK is a terrible and violent place where no one cares for each other, is laughable.

[Guest Peeves]

Neither serves society. If someone needs to be killed defending one's life, so be it. If they can be arrested, great. It's whatever the circumstances dictate....

And implying that this couldn't happen in the USA due to the proliferation of guns and everyone is looking out for one another's well being there, while the UK is a terrible and violent place where no one cares for each other, is laughable.

I never implied that such could not happen in the USA,however there are cases where an armed by stander has intervened in the USA . Of course without resources the Brits had few choices.However, stabding around taking pictures for twenty minutes perhaps was a bit foolish given there was no assurance there would not be further butchering of bystanders

Actually I think at least one woman made an effort in the UK scenario.

There were but two choices offered. "Neither" was not an option. But then your comment "It's whatever the circumstances dictate...." Is a reasonable point of view and to be considered..

Perhaps applying the principle of Oc′cam's ra′zor* serves here.

Quite simply with the few facts at hand in the question I go with intervene for all of society if one can. That's how I see it.

I suggest there is a better service to humanity if the victim can be immediately assisted with some assurance of success. Simple.

Where is society to gain if a butcher is given a photo op and a forum to spout radical propaganda and continue a murder and spout hate for 20 minutes.

What is to be served by an opportunity to question a live terrorist with the same old nonsensical answers.

What is to be gained by having a trial and providing a radical murderer opportunity to vent and rail from a judicial soap box.

Anything needed can be investigated by checking his friends, institutions attended, contacts and familly history.

Stop him if you can...simple.

*Oc′cam's ra′zor

n.

the principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.

Also called law of parsimony.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Peeves

[Moonlight Graham]

Why do you have to kill the machete murderer? Why not shoot him in the leg, or taser him, or just pull a gun on him and threaten him, or ram him with a car, or throw tear-gas or pepper spray or flash-bangs on him, or point a fire-hose on him, or find dozens of other possible ways to stop the murder without anyone being killed?

[Guest Peeves]

Why do you have to kill the machete murderer? Why not shoot him in the leg, or taser him, or just pull a gun on him and threaten him, or ram him with a car, or throw tear-gas or pepper spray or flash-bangs on him, or point a fire-hose on him, or find dozens of other possible ways to stop the murder without anyone being killed?

In a case such as the posed scenario and in reality, wounding might serve, but might not. If an armed individual is slaughtering someone shoot to kill. A cop would. Are we expected to hope we can simply hit an arm or leg? Nope I'd expect a cop or armed bystander to empty their gun to save the victim.

As for the alternatives they are quite nonsensical other than ramming with a car, too much time entailed etc.

BTW isn't death what a martyr wants, wounding might embarass him....

If a person is being murdered, which choice best serves society?

{two choices are offerd}

Edited June 12, 2013 by Peeves

[Moonlight Graham]

In a case such as the posed scenario and in reality, wounding might serve, but might not. If an armed individual is slaughtering someone shoot to kill. A cop would. Are we expected to hope we can simply hit an arm or leg? Nope I'd expect a cop or armed bystander to empty their gun to save the victim.

If I only had a gun I and saw someone trying to kill someone else with a machete I would yell "freeze or i'll blow your head off!", if that did nothing I would shoot for a leg or hip until I hit it, but if that was unsuccessful and I was down to my last bullet or 2 I'd shoot for the abdomen. This would all play out in a matter of seconds. Now, if the machete was raised and about to come down on the victim in the next second I'd shoot for the abdomen immediately. But I would never shoot to specifically kill the attacker unless some scenario made that my ONLY choice (unlikely). IE: I wouldn't aim for the head or aim for the heart etc.

As for the alternatives they are quite nonsensical other than ramming with a car, too much time entailed etc.

How does tasering the attacker take too much time or is nonsensical? It would incapacitate the attacker immediately. If not, taser them again, or they should create a weapon that could. ALL police armed with guns should also be armed with tasers and possibly pepper-spray as a non-lethal option.

[Guest Peeves]

If I only had a gun I and saw someone trying to kill someone else with a machete I would yell "freeze or i'll blow your head off!", if that did nothing I would shoot for a leg or hip until I hit it, but if that was unsuccessful and I was down to my last bullet or 2 I'd shoot for the abdomen. This would all play out in a matter of seconds. Now, if the machete was raised and about to come down on the victim in the next second I'd shoot for the abdomen immediately. But I would never shoot to specifically kill the attacker unless some scenario made that my ONLY choice (unlikely). IE: I wouldn't aim for the head or aim for the heart etc.

How does tasering the attacker take too much time or is nonsensical? It would incapacitate the attacker immediately. If not, taser them again, or they should create a weapon that could. ALL police armed with guns should also be armed with tasers and possibly pepper-spray as a non-lethal option.

Yup the average nut would go up against a big machete butchering murderer with a taser ...good luck with that. And the average joe using a gun would have little chance of hitting an arm or leg, the torso being the only logical target if inclined of necessity to shoot a killer.

You aim for the leg...you're dead. You simply aim and fire. I've fired often enough at targets,stationary non confrontational targets,to know you shoot, you shoot to hit whatever you can, no time for nicities or shoud's, woulda', could'a or you're history. Now get real.It's you (we) against a murdering radical. Blow him away .

Edited June 15, 2013 by Peeves

[Peter F]

But your OP question spoke of a choice of killing or not killing dependant upon the best service to society. Now you are saying there is no choice at all. The firearm won't allow choice - open fire in order to disable the target and aim for the biggest target area because god knows where the bullets will actually go. The only viable service to society is stop the killer killing.

Avoiding future court soap-boxes being a reason to kill now has no bearing on the issue at all.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yup the average nut would go up against a big machete butchering murderer with a taser ...good luck with that. And the average joe using a gun would have little chance of hitting an arm or leg, the torso being the only logical target if inclined of necessity to shoot a killer.

In 2009, some tasers could shoot 3 times. They may be able to shoot even more times by now. And they shoot up to 35 ft apparently. How can a machete murderer beat anyone trained with that kind of weapon? Taser the guy and take his machete away. If he gets up, taser him again.

You aim for the leg...you're dead. You simply aim and fire. I've fired often enough at targets,stationary non confrontational targets,to know you shoot, you shoot to hit whatever you can, no time for nicities or shoud's, woulda', could'a or you're history. Now get real.It's you (we) against a murdering radical. Blow him away .

Clearly you're determined to want to shoot guns at murderers and kill them. Have fun with the manslaughter charges.

[Guest Peeves]

In 2009, some tasers could shoot 3 times. They may be able to shoot even more times by now. And they shoot up to 35 ft apparently. How can a machete murderer beat anyone trained with that kind of weapon? Taser the guy and take his machete away. If he gets up, taser him again.

Clearly you're determined to want to shoot guns at murderers and kill them. Have fun with the manslaughter charges.

Clearly I wanted to see the mind setof some. As usual I enjoyed the differing opinions my scenario invited,yours included. That I would support the one best suited to save a fellow human beings life I think is supportable.

Alternative possibilities which at best are verrrrry 'iffy' don't address the need to act to try to save a life. Of course if the murdering savage butcher was fatally killed in any intervention, the party inflicting - contributing to his demise should face the consequences...to whit....HERO!

savior, good samaritan...and conscientious human being.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Peeves

[dre]

So this is supposed to pass for a real OP here?

[Guest Peeves]

So this is supposed to pass for a real OP here?

Yes indeed. It's an opportunity to express an opinion in which it succeeded.

I stand firm on my position. 6 voted I believe. The diversity of mind set seems to ignore the logical conclusion that other than immediate action to stop the

attack, the victim is lost and the attacker has succeeded.