Sympathizing with a Killer

[lawtonfogle]

So, a man is one day listening to his short way radio when he hears a conversation between two hunters. Both of them were just out hunting which ever animal is in season, when one guy suggest that they go hunt a kid he knows with downs syndrome. The other guys quickly gives a WT*, before the first follows up about joking. The guy listening is shocked at such a crude joke, but thinks nothing of it. That is, at least, until he finds out a child with downs syndrome has been shot near where he lived. A quick personal investigation makes it clear who shot the child, the same hunter he heard joking. And he learns that the guy has another target, another child with a mental disability.

So, doing what any good citizen does, he takes his evidence (a very convincing amount of it, to the police). But for what ever reasons, the police don't listen. A few says he is crazy, but most listen to him, yet they end up saying that even if his evidence is true, the hunter is doing a favor to the families which will have a financial and emotional burden on them. One or two of the police do take him serious, convinced the evidence points to the hunter, but upon trying to act, they are restrained by their superior. With their job on the line, they back off the case.

The man quickly recovers from shock at what he has heard out of the mouths of the police, and realizing the law will not save this guy, he promptly gets himself a gun, hunts down, and finally shoots and kills the hunter.

Can you sympathize with his reaction? If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you? Does it matter if he was breaking a law, does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?

Yes, this case is based off of Tiller's death, but it is only that. I am not trying to recreate even the 'spirit' of the Tiller case, as I do not know the intentions of the shooter. But it did prime me to create a scenario where we do know the intentions of the shooter.

And some will quickly reply and say none the less that unborn fetus are not humans. While I will originally say stick to the topic, I should point out that some of Tiller's cases, to my knowledge, where partial birth abortions where the fetus would have been viable, and under my own way of considering when something is considered alive, they already where. But, as I said, I would like to keep as much of Tiller's case separate from this one, and see how people react to this case.

 

[Washington]

Can you sympathize with his reaction?

Yes.

If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you?

Guilty.

Does it matter if he was breaking a law,

Yes.

does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?

No.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes.



Guilty.



Yes.



No.

Very very cut and dry... well, at least no dancing around the questions.

 

[heavensblade23]

And some will quickly reply and say none the less that unborn fetus are not humans. While I will originally say stick to the topic, I should point out that some of Tiller's cases, to my knowledge, where partial birth abortions where the fetus would have been viable, and under my own way of considering when something is considered alive, they already where.

Dr. George R. Tiller specializes in terminating late-term pregnancies after the fetus has been diagnosed with a birth defect: a deformed heart, missing kidneys, Down's syndrome, anencephaly.

He calls his work a "reproductive ministry," and he offers his patients many of the same services as the hospice. Tiller encourages parents to hold, dress and photograph their aborted children, whom he delivers stillborn but intact. His staff takes ink-prints of tiny feet and hands; he brings in a chaplain for baptisms. Letters from grateful patients line the clinic's walls.​

As for your hypothetical scenario, one murderer killing another isn't justice.
​

 

[Joachim]

As for your hypothetical scenario, one murderer killing another isn't justice.
[/indent]

Are you pro or anti when it comes to capital punishment?

 

[heavensblade23]

Are you pro or anti when it comes to capital punishment?

Capital Punishment forces me to become a conspirator in murder. The killer has the final triumph in forcing the state to share in his crime.

(Though it's worth pointing out that it's inevitable that your government is going to finance something you don't agree with.)

 

[Mystman]

I think a "punishment" should have 1 goal: striking a balance between a smaller chance of the crime happening again (either by the same criminal or a different one), and harm done to the criminal itself.

e.g.: Executing shoplifters is probably going to decrease the amount of shoplifting, but does more harm by killing criminals who might otherwise have had a good life. So don't execute shoplifters. Drunk drivers on the other hand...

Anyway, the scenario you sketch is a bit weird, but I can certainly sympathize with the killer... I'd probably give him a "medium" penalty of a few years in jail. Enough to show him and society that you aren't supposed to play your own judge, but not so much that his own life is completely ruined.

On the other hand, your scenario makes it sound as if the government itself sanctions the behavior of the hunter. Killing people for government-sanctioned behavior is grounds for a life-imprisonment/banishment/execution. You can't have a functioning society where the government says "behavior X is ok", followed by random citizens killing people who actually do X.

The "medium sentence" I described earlier should be reserved for scenarios where guy getting killed committed a very serious crime: e.g., someone rapes your sister, you kill the rapist, you go to jail for a few years.

In our world, hunting kids with down syndrome would certainly fall into the category of very serious crime, but I get the feeling that it doesn't in your scenario?

 

[ragarth]

This is indeed a complex issue, however the fellow still had many more outs than 'kill the guy'. The police are not the end all of law enforcement. There's state troopers, news media, and FBI. (since the guy's a serial killer, that falls into FBI jurisdiction) Any one of which would be capable of putting pressure or taking over the job of local authorities.

Further, even if by some chance all these options were exhausted, killing the guy isn't the only course left. Even if he's so intent on shooting the mentally ill that you can't dissuade him, there's always the option of permanent disability- Put the jerk in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

Given this:

Can you sympathize with his reaction?
Somewhat yes, but not to the extent he went. Nobody deserves to die if it can be avoided, no matter what you perceive the worth of the individual to be.

If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you?
guilty

Does it matter if he was breaking a law,
Yes, he didn't exhaust all his options. He jumped the gun on taking the law into his own hands.

does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?
No, he not only jumped the gun straight to murder, he also had no need to go to murder to begin with.

 

[Joachim]

As far as the original example goes. It does not corrorborate with Tiller for one important reason. The law right now says it doesn't. What Tiller did was legal. Going around and popping kids with Downs Syndrome isn't.


Now, if I was on the jury. I would not let this guy get a felony conviction. If I had to stay in that courtroom for a year, he would not be convicted. I would either be forced off of the jury or I would convince my fellow jurors to convict him of some misdemanor charge, with the request and caveat that this not be used as a discrimination against him in employment. And this would only be if I couldn't convince them of a not guilty plea. What you have described is a justifiable homicide.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As for your hypothetical scenario, one murderer killing another isn't justice.
[/indent]

He isn't killing the hunter because the hunter is a murderer, but because the hunter plans to kill again. It is not vengeance, it is defense. The fact that the hunter has killed the first is more proof that he will kill again (all evidence points to him killing again).

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think a "punishment" should have 1 goal: striking a balance between a smaller chance of the crime happening again (either by the same criminal or a different one), and harm done to the criminal itself.

e.g.: Executing shoplifters is probably going to decrease the amount of shoplifting, but does more harm by killing criminals who might otherwise have had a good life. So don't execute shoplifters. Drunk drivers on the other hand...

Anyway, the scenario you sketch is a bit weird, but I can certainly sympathize with the killer... I'd probably give him a "medium" penalty of a few years in jail. Enough to show him and society that you aren't supposed to play your own judge, but not so much that his own life is completely ruined.

On the other hand, your scenario makes it sound as if the government itself sanctions the behavior of the hunter. Killing people for government-sanctioned behavior is grounds for a life-imprisonment/banishment/execution. You can't have a functioning society where the government says "behavior X is ok", followed by random citizens killing people who actually do X.

The "medium sentence" I described earlier should be reserved for scenarios where guy getting killed committed a very serious crime: e.g., someone rapes your sister, you kill the rapist, you go to jail for a few years.

In our world, hunting kids with down syndrome would certainly fall into the category of very serious crime, but I get the feeling that it doesn't in your scenario?

Well, many would think that the law should consider it a major crime, but for what ever technicality (say a new, wordy, law which intent had nothing to do with this), the guy is able to legally get away (at least, the police are able to legally 'wash their hands' of this problem).

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is indeed a complex issue, however the fellow still had many more outs than 'kill the guy'. The police are not the end all of law enforcement. There's state troopers, news media, and FBI. (since the guy's a serial killer, that falls into FBI jurisdiction) Any one of which would be capable of putting pressure or taking over the job of local authorities.

Further, even if by some chance all these options were exhausted, killing the guy isn't the only course left. Even if he's so intent on shooting the mentally ill that you can't dissuade him, there's always the option of permanent disability- Put the jerk in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

You do bring up an interesting point of, when the guy pulled the trigger, was he meaning to kill the hunter, or was he meaning to shoot the hunter to disable.

I left this unclear (though I should not have), so if you think it makes a difference, please say so. I do have an amazing ability to get something in my mind, put it on paper, read it and see that I have everything, and then have others point out I forgot about 30% of what I was thinking about.








Yes, 30% is a made up statistic.

 

[lawtonfogle]

As far as the original example goes. It does not corrorborate with Tiller for one important reason. The law right now says it doesn't. What Tiller did was legal. Going around and popping kids with Downs Syndrome isn't.


Now, if I was on the jury. I would not let this guy get a felony conviction. If I had to stay in that courtroom for a year, he would not be convicted. I would either be forced off of the jury or I would convince my fellow jurors to convict him of some misdemanor charge, with the request and caveat that this not be used as a discrimination against him in employment. And this would only be if I couldn't convince them of a not guilty plea. What you have described is a justifiable homicide.

Isn't there such a choice as a 'hung jury'?

 

[fated]

As lawful persons justice is to be measured out by the system we set up.

 

[Zebra1552]

So, a man is one day listening to his short way radio when he hears a conversation between two hunters. Both of them were just out hunting which ever animal is in season, when one guy suggest that they go hunt a kid he knows with downs syndrome. The other guys quickly gives a WT*, before the first follows up about joking. The guy listening is shocked at such a crude joke, but thinks nothing of it. That is, at least, until he finds out a child with downs syndrome has been shot near where he lived. A quick personal investigation makes it clear who shot the child, the same hunter he heard joking. And he learns that the guy has another target, another child with a mental disability.

So, doing what any good citizen does, he takes his evidence (a very convincing amount of it, to the police). But for what ever reasons, the police don't listen. A few says he is crazy, but most listen to him, yet they end up saying that even if his evidence is true, the hunter is doing a favor to the families which will have a financial and emotional burden on them. One or two of the police do take him serious, convinced the evidence points to the hunter, but upon trying to act, they are restrained by their superior. With their job on the line, they back off the case.

The man quickly recovers from shock at what he has heard out of the mouths of the police, and realizing the law will not save this guy, he promptly gets himself a gun, hunts down, and finally shoots and kills the hunter.

Can you sympathize with his reaction? If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you? Does it matter if he was breaking a law, does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?

Yes, this case is based off of Tiller's death, but it is only that. I am not trying to recreate even the 'spirit' of the Tiller case, as I do not know the intentions of the shooter. But it did prime me to create a scenario where we do know the intentions of the shooter.

And some will quickly reply and say none the less that unborn fetus are not humans. While I will originally say stick to the topic, I should point out that some of Tiller's cases, to my knowledge, where partial birth abortions where the fetus would have been viable, and under my own way of considering when something is considered alive, they already where. But, as I said, I would like to keep as much of Tiller's case separate from this one, and see how people react to this case.

Why did the guy have to kill the hunter to prevent the murder? Why not incapacitate him until the authorities are willing to intervene?

 

[Jade Margery]

Well, first off, in this scenario the fact that the evidence 'makes clear' to the main character that that the hunter killed the child is evidently not clear to the police. The man believes the hunter is guilty, but he was not there, and he cannot know for certain. That is why we have judges, juries, court rooms etc. in the first place. This man would like to be all at one, and executioner as well.

The man in the story is effectively a conspiracy theorist. He firmly believes something is true, but he cannot prove it to the system, so he takes matters into his own hands. That is the sort of behavior that leads to anarchy, were it practiced on a wider scale.

The right thing for him to do would have been to contact people in the area with children with down syndrome, give them photographs of the hunter, and, if he believed that a specific child was being targeted, he could have offered to guard said child with the parent's permission.

So, yes, I would convict him, without hesitation.

 

[heavensblade23]

If it is moral for a Christian to kill to prevent murder, then it is just as moral to kill to prevent heresy or apostasy or even preaching a different religion, really. Leading others into perdition is infinitely worse than killing them.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

As lawful persons justice is to be measured out by the system we set up.

Agreed and if the system is flawed it is the system that needs to be changed. In a civilized society vigilantism is inappropriate and rightfully illegal.

As for the OP;
The man who kills the murderer is just as guilty of murder as is the man he killed. Should I be on the jury I would consider him guilty based on the facts you have given. I would certainly have compassion for him as I would for the man who committed the original murders.

As for its application to the case of the Abortion provider. Although this man had much innocent blood on his hands his life is no more or less valuable than the lives he took. The person who killed him in my opinion is just as guilty of taking human life as was the physician.

 

[Penumbra]

Can you sympathize with his reaction? If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you? Does it matter if he was breaking a law, does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?

Yes, I can sympathize with his reaction.

If I was on the jury, and the evidence supported it, then yes, I would say he is guilty of pre-meditated murder. Jurors are asked to determine whether he is guilty, not to determine whether the law is fair or not.

I don't think the "spirit" of the law agrees either, because the law doesn't really encourage vigilantes.

As far as sentencing is concerned, I think it would be fair to give him a slightly reduced sentence, but he still committed pre-medicated murder.

 

[ragarth]

You do bring up an interesting point of, when the guy pulled the trigger, was he meaning to kill the hunter, or was he meaning to shoot the hunter to disable.

I left this unclear (though I should not have), so if you think it makes a difference, please say so. I do have an amazing ability to get something in my mind, put it on paper, read it and see that I have everything, and then have others point out I forgot about 30% of what I was thinking about.

Yes, 30% is a made up statistic.

Yes, if his intent was to defend the next victim without killing the murderer, then the murder wasn't premeditated. If he killed the murderer because his own life was threatened (within applicable state law) then it was self defense. But as I said, he had a lot of options open to him still instead of running off with a loaded gun, he hadn't exhausted all his options yet.