But she’s absolutely wrong here legally. This is premeditated self-defense against an impending lethally armed intruder, totally different. As long as they are in the dwelling and JJ enters armed with intent to kill, they can legally kill or capture him even if they knew he was coming. The law does not require you to try and flee a professional assassin, that would be absolutely absurd. A real trial for this group would never even happen, no sane prosecutor would waste our already over-burdened justice system on a clear-cut case of “monstrous pro hitman gets killed by his prey”
That depends on the state. Anywhere with a “stand your ground” law such a trap would clearly fly, but in other states it depends on the particular standards of self-defense. I’m pretty sure that California, for example, would not permit you to set a deadly trap when you could instead flee. And even in the places where it is legal, that doesn’t guarantee that the police will believe you when you say that unidentifiable corpse was coming to kill you.
Just in general, blowing up a structure the size of a moderate house has a very significant amount of collateral damage range unless it’s out in the middle of nowhere with nothing of note to cause any trouble.
In the middle of a neighborhood in a city or town has a huge number of variables for things going wrong.
Indeed. Two dead in the exploded house, nine people injured, hundreds evacuated. The gas was turned off, but turning it back on again safely is another story. Many people still can’t go home. Dozens of houses were damaged by debris. The two neighbouring houses, at least, are beyond repair and will have to be demolished.
Also: if it hadn’t happened during the late afternoon when most people were at work and kids were in school, the death toll would surely have been much higher.
The biggest con artist of all, rakes in money from neighborhoods, cities, even states. Ed’s got serious power. Everybody pays, and they all see it as just part of the cost of modern life. You want out of the racket? You’re gonna have to head out of town, hide deep in the woods. You willing to get off the grid? Because unless you pay up, Con Ed will make sure you’ll be seeing dark days, and darker nights.
Oooh, when you first said claymore, I was imagining the shaped explosive device. I then read the rest of the sentence.
…and now I can’t get the image of a waist bare, woad painted JJ running around with an explosive brick strapped to his chest that reads, Front Toward Enemy.
That would indeed be pretty memorable. And could certainly wreak havoc in a small house.
I was thinking more William Wallace than Solid Snake, but there is a school of thought that says the more weapons the better. So claymores for all occasions.
Congratulations, you’ve never bothered to really stop and think about morality, you just bought into the culture’s Morality LITE (TM), hook, line, and sinker.
Justifiable homicide is NOT “murder” (look it up). Also, while generally held to be criminal when not handled by the state (for some decently good reasons, actually, but all of them are PRACTICAL, not ETHICAL), execution of a murderer is called “justice”, not murder.
Finally, THE GUY IS COMING TO KILL YOU, and doesn’t mind doing so in the slightest. To worry about his well-being is not ethically or morally required (though some belief systems do consider it laudable, if you can find it within yourself).
Your other arguments (the downsides of blowing up the house in a crowded neighborhood) are actually logical and decent. Stick to those, not the arguments that involve giving the bad guys extra chances to kill all the good guys and get away with it.
No Deoxy used the correct term: justifiable homicide in self-defense. This is not murder disguised as any form “lynch justice”, this is perfectly legit legal self-defense.
Learn some law; there are MANY ‘modern’ cases of legitimate lethal self-defense where the homeowner (and guests) knew ahead of time that lethally armed intruder(s) were coming and basically planned to do exactly this: surprise and kill/capture them as soon as they entered the dwelling. The law is fine with it and so am I.
For what exactly? It’s common sense that justified killing in self-defense is NOT murder i.e. if you prove to a jury in court that you killed someone because they were about to kill you, you are NOT convicted of murder because you did not commit one- you committed justifiable homicide.
Common sense is an extraordinarily bad argument for ethics.
Citations would be needed for claims as “To worry about his well-being is not ethically or morally required”. In which ethical system is this true? Please provide citations…
By common sense I meant common knowledge of basic US law. Maybe you should have specified what part you thought needed a citation since I couldn’t even tell you wanted to waste both of our time discussing ethics on the internet.
Um, how about instead you cite me an ethical system where it is REQUIRED (as in you must do it or you are a bad person) to worry about the well-being of a SERIAL KILLER who murdered your friend in front of you and is now coming to kill you and the rest of your friends? Because I honestly can’t think of a single one and basically EVERY ethical system on the planet would be ok with pre-planned lethal self-defense in this situation.
I always laugh a little inside when people start discussing ethics as though they were hard-coded constants of objective existence.
Speaking as someone of a rather Negative-Utilitarian mentality… killing is always justified if the death results in a net reduction of suffering… which tends to be increasingly the case the more are euthanised in one go. Even so, the most quick, clean and merciful method should be strongly favoured.
Obviously I have ethical differences with most people and am fully aware of that… but I try not to judge them too harshly for it unless they judge me first.
Well, we know a bit more about JJ, so chances are the commentors may have stronger opinions about him. meanwhile, the group here has met him one or two times, and while they can draw some reliable conclusions about him, there is still a lot of blank space about his specifics. Unknowns tend to divide people into two camps: the Cautious and the I Don’t Care.
Hoo boy, Little Ms. Glasses is gonna balk and get somebody killed isn’t she?
Oh, they’ll be lucky if she only gets one of them killed.
They’ll be really lucky if she gets herself killed instead of the rest of them.
Did you not notice that part of her problem with it is that it would be premeditated murder?Self defense is an entirely different matter.
But she’s absolutely wrong here legally. This is premeditated self-defense against an impending lethally armed intruder, totally different. As long as they are in the dwelling and JJ enters armed with intent to kill, they can legally kill or capture him even if they knew he was coming. The law does not require you to try and flee a professional assassin, that would be absolutely absurd. A real trial for this group would never even happen, no sane prosecutor would waste our already over-burdened justice system on a clear-cut case of “monstrous pro hitman gets killed by his prey”
That depends on the state. Anywhere with a “stand your ground” law such a trap would clearly fly, but in other states it depends on the particular standards of self-defense. I’m pretty sure that California, for example, would not permit you to set a deadly trap when you could instead flee. And even in the places where it is legal, that doesn’t guarantee that the police will believe you when you say that unidentifiable corpse was coming to kill you.
Way to avoid the cliche there, Xan.
Blowing him up would allow Hurricane to get away with their crimes. He’s got to be captured alive.
Just in general, blowing up a structure the size of a moderate house has a very significant amount of collateral damage range unless it’s out in the middle of nowhere with nothing of note to cause any trouble.
In the middle of a neighborhood in a city or town has a huge number of variables for things going wrong.
There’s a house that exploded in Mississauga Ontario just recently. If you want an idea of the collateral, that’s a good place to start.
Bloody hell…you can barely see the street under all the debris.
Indeed. Two dead in the exploded house, nine people injured, hundreds evacuated. The gas was turned off, but turning it back on again safely is another story. Many people still can’t go home. Dozens of houses were damaged by debris. The two neighbouring houses, at least, are beyond repair and will have to be demolished.
Also: if it hadn’t happened during the late afternoon when most people were at work and kids were in school, the death toll would surely have been much higher.
Plan B is a drone strike?
If Xan is holding what I think he is, plan B is tricking Berten into admitting his crimes and involvement with Hurricane on camera.
Assuming that first line should be “staking us out,” rather than “stalking”… gives a nice parenthetical/bookendish feel to the last line, too. :)
Who is this Con Ed? he doesn’t ring any bells.
The biggest con artist of all, rakes in money from neighborhoods, cities, even states. Ed’s got serious power. Everybody pays, and they all see it as just part of the cost of modern life. You want out of the racket? You’re gonna have to head out of town, hide deep in the woods. You willing to get off the grid? Because unless you pay up, Con Ed will make sure you’ll be seeing dark days, and darker nights.
Where’s my like button?
You definitely need one. Your avatar is looking like a dislike button and may send the wrong impression.
Straight-to-video sequel to Con Air, set in a school. There’s a bit where the hero turns off the gas to prevent an explosion.
The app’s called iNietzsche.
It did not sell well.
Yet it never stopped selling poorly.
The poor sales just improved its performance.
I’m impressed they aren’t running for their lives right now.
I’m far more interested in JJ’s plan of attack. Because individually killing 5 people doesn’t seem very safe.
Going after the radiator or the ventilation sounds plausable.
Maybe he’ll show up with a claymore, half-naked and covered in woad.
Oooh, when you first said claymore, I was imagining the shaped explosive device. I then read the rest of the sentence.
…and now I can’t get the image of a waist bare, woad painted JJ running around with an explosive brick strapped to his chest that reads, Front Toward Enemy.
That would indeed be pretty memorable. And could certainly wreak havoc in a small house.
I was thinking more William Wallace than Solid Snake, but there is a school of thought that says the more weapons the better. So claymores for all occasions.
Even the dreaded Claymore-claymore? An actual Scottish claymore with a claymore explosive strapped to the blade…
Damn you Final Fantasy 8, you’ve ruined me….
I’m more worried about the Claymore claymore – a directional mine that launches two foot long swords towards an enemy who triggers the tripwire
Okay, that is actually even more terrifying than my take. Kudos sir!
These guys desperately need Bruce Campbell.
Unfortunately, they have T Campbell.
Do they any Campbell’s Chicken Noodle Soup?
There is a reason the simplest plans are the best plans. Less moving parts, less to go wrong.
“Premeditate murder? Even if killing a killer?”
Congratulations, you’ve never bothered to really stop and think about morality, you just bought into the culture’s Morality LITE (TM), hook, line, and sinker.
Justifiable homicide is NOT “murder” (look it up). Also, while generally held to be criminal when not handled by the state (for some decently good reasons, actually, but all of them are PRACTICAL, not ETHICAL), execution of a murderer is called “justice”, not murder.
Finally, THE GUY IS COMING TO KILL YOU, and doesn’t mind doing so in the slightest. To worry about his well-being is not ethically or morally required (though some belief systems do consider it laudable, if you can find it within yourself).
Your other arguments (the downsides of blowing up the house in a crowded neighborhood) are actually logical and decent. Stick to those, not the arguments that involve giving the bad guys extra chances to kill all the good guys and get away with it.
I think the correct term is ‘lynch justice’. It means you are not allowed to kill somebody, murderer or not, if not in self defence. Modern times.
Thank you.
No Deoxy used the correct term: justifiable homicide in self-defense. This is not murder disguised as any form “lynch justice”, this is perfectly legit legal self-defense.
Learn some law; there are MANY ‘modern’ cases of legitimate lethal self-defense where the homeowner (and guests) knew ahead of time that lethally armed intruder(s) were coming and basically planned to do exactly this: surprise and kill/capture them as soon as they entered the dwelling. The law is fine with it and so am I.
[citation needed]
For what exactly? It’s common sense that justified killing in self-defense is NOT murder i.e. if you prove to a jury in court that you killed someone because they were about to kill you, you are NOT convicted of murder because you did not commit one- you committed justifiable homicide.
Common sense is an extraordinarily bad argument for ethics.
Citations would be needed for claims as “To worry about his well-being is not ethically or morally required”. In which ethical system is this true? Please provide citations…
By common sense I meant common knowledge of basic US law. Maybe you should have specified what part you thought needed a citation since I couldn’t even tell you wanted to waste both of our time discussing ethics on the internet.
Um, how about instead you cite me an ethical system where it is REQUIRED (as in you must do it or you are a bad person) to worry about the well-being of a SERIAL KILLER who murdered your friend in front of you and is now coming to kill you and the rest of your friends? Because I honestly can’t think of a single one and basically EVERY ethical system on the planet would be ok with pre-planned lethal self-defense in this situation.
I always laugh a little inside when people start discussing ethics as though they were hard-coded constants of objective existence.
Speaking as someone of a rather Negative-Utilitarian mentality… killing is always justified if the death results in a net reduction of suffering… which tends to be increasingly the case the more are euthanised in one go. Even so, the most quick, clean and merciful method should be strongly favoured.
Obviously I have ethical differences with most people and am fully aware of that… but I try not to judge them too harshly for it unless they judge me first.
….so what? The neighbours will respwan anyway. They ALWAYS do.
But with destructible terrain as part of the engine, the house won’t.
Is it just me or are people too quick to bad mouth a pacifist?
Well, we know a bit more about JJ, so chances are the commentors may have stronger opinions about him. meanwhile, the group here has met him one or two times, and while they can draw some reliable conclusions about him, there is still a lot of blank space about his specifics. Unknowns tend to divide people into two camps: the Cautious and the I Don’t Care.
No, they really are. It’s disturbing.
Pacifism is not a beneficial trait in their circumstances.
Typo? I assume that’s “He’ll be *staking* us out now.”
LOL way to hit “the cutest one is the most suicidally naive” cliche on the head here guys XD
Lia: ^n^ wah waaah heartless sadistic killing machines need mercy too guys!!