Murder in defense of another?

strobe

Hey, I was just wondering if Christianity has anything to say on the following:

So you are walking down the street, you see someone about to stab another person. You are carrying a gun. So as they go to stab the other person, you point the gun at the back of the attackers head and get ready to shoot.

Is there anything specifically stated in Christianity about wether you should pull the trigger or not?

DOC09UNAM

Have you ever read the commandments?

strobe

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Have you ever read the commandments?

Which ones? and Yes.

DOC09UNAM

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'


Would be a good one to start with.

JimiTime

The obvious question is what you are doing with a gun? Also, why you call it murder(unlawful killing)? If its murder, its wrong.


Putting that aside, I would not class such a person as a murderer. If you see such a thing as murder, then you should't do it. If you see it as saving an innocents life from a murderer, then its a fine, if unfortunate, case. Leaving aside arguements of 'Shoot him in the legs' etc. I'm thinking for sake of arguement, you want an answer based on being in a ladst resort situation.

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

The obvious question is what you are doing with a gun? Also, why you call it murder(unlawful killing)? If its murder, its wrong.


Putting that aside, I would not class such a person as a murderer. If you see such a thing as murder, then you should't do it. If you see it as saving an innocents life from a murderer, then its a fine, if unfortunate, case. Leaving aside arguements of 'Shoot him in the legs' etc. I'm thinking for sake of arguement, you want an answer based on being in a ladst resort situation.

Yeah Jimi, I'm putting the question forward as a "kill or allowed to be killed" situation. If it helps people, lets say the guy is wearing full body armour (and you have a low calibre weapon) but his head is exposed...

In regards to the "unlawful killing" part. Is that a specifically mentioned phrase in Christianity in regards to the 6th commandment? If so, what about in an anarchy for example, where it can not be unlawful? Or does it only refer to the specific law in old Jewish culture.....which doesn't count since the coming of Jesus. You see where my confusion lies....

Did Jesus say anything specifically about the type of situation (not the exact situation obviously) in the OP?

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

In regards to the "unlawful killing" part. Is that a specifically mentioned phrase in Christianity in regards to the 6th commandment?

Thats the definition of murder, so yes.

If so, what about in an anarchy for example, where it can not be unlawful? Or does it only refer to the specific law in old Jewish culture

It was a commandment for Gods people.

.....which doesn't count since the coming of Jesus. You see where my confusion lies....

Actually, it does, as the golden rule on which the law was written applies. Love God, and Love your neighbour. You would make a call based on circumstance as to the right thing to do. In such a circumstance, I would go with Gods law. If I lived in a society that said that I must let the innocent party die in that circumstance, then I would let Gods definitions supercede that of the state.

Did Jesus say anything specifically about the type of situation (not the exact situation obviously) in the OP?

Not that I'm aware of.

DOC09UNAM

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue (from Greek δεκάλογος), is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to using several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai [2] or Horeb,[3] and later authored by God and given to or written by Moses in the form of two stone tablets. They are recognized as a moral foundation in Judaism and Christianity, and their substance also figures in Islam.

From wikipedia.

Source

PDN

I wouldn't see a problem in such an action where it was obvious that you were saving innocent lives. For example, if a suicide bomber was about to blow himself up while standing beside twenty pre-school children, I would feel no moral qualms about walking up and shooting that sucker in the back of the head.

However, the problem with all forms of vigilante justice is that most of us lack the expertise to judge whether we are truly saving lives or just making things worse. Sometimes even those who are supposed to be professionals make mistakes.

For example, in the 1980s, a British army sniper was on top of a block of flats in Belfast. In the distance he saw a gunman, wearing dark glasses, forcing two other men to kneel on a piece of wasteground. Since this bore all the hallmarks of a paramilitary execution, the sniper intervened and took the executioner out with a body shot from nearly a mile away. It was a stunning piece of marksmanship - and had obviously saved lives.

Unfortunately the gunman in dark glasses, a friend of mine, was a police officer who had chased down and cornered two bank robbers. He was instructing them to kneel down, then to lie flat, while he waited for backup to arrive. The end result of the snipers intervention was that two bank robbers escaped (though probably crapping themselves in the process) and my friend survived, but was forced to retire from active duty due to his permanently mangled shoulder.

So, while I see no moral objection to killing someone to save innocent lives, the implementation of such a principle is not so simple.

Vinny-Chase

Isn't the real "spirit" of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth for just such scenarios? So as not to avenge one death by killing 10 people? Just because someone is carrying a knife isn't cause to murder someone.

I think in the given scenario if the threat of a gun does not deter some one with a knife and the outcome is that the innocent or yourself is going to die then it is justified "murder".

Shooting someone in the head and killing them without warning would be murder as far as I'm concerned. I think PDN's story is proof of ye never know the full story.

SonOfAdam

If you're walking down a street carrying a gun without a legitimate reason(e.g you are not a member of the garda armed response unit) then you are probably more of a threat to those around than the one carrying the knife - but humouring the OP I would say there is a distinct difference between murder and the defense of others that results in the killing of an attacker.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

Did Jesus say anything specifically about the type of situation

Funny you should ask. Jesus advised us to carry high calibre weaponry and to always aim for the head. You get more points that way. I don't think your low calibre scenario applies.


As most people have said, I would in principle make a distinction between murder and killing. Allowing that knife-man to go on killing could be considered a form of evil in itself.

CIE

strobe wrote: »

Hey, I was just wondering if Christianity has anything to say on the following:

So you are walking down the street, you see someone about to stab another person. You are carrying a gun. So as they go to stab the other person, you point the gun at the back of the attackers head and get ready to shoot.

Is there anything specifically stated in Christianity about w(h)ether you should pull the trigger or not?

Your title is erroneous. When in defence of another, it's not murder.

And besides, one need not strike a killing blow even with a gun. There are non-lethal points on the body to shoot at, so why aim at the head? unless that's what you wanted to do in the first place, which would edge things closer to a murderous bent. Police are trained in this sort of thing, too (avoidance of using lethal force), and there's no reason why a citizen who sees fit to carry a gun (and is licenced to do so) ought not have gone through similar training. Are we looking for some kind of loophole here? because this scenario is very open-ended.

DOC09UNAM

CIE wrote: »

Your title is erroneous. When in defence of another, it's not murder.

And besides, one need not strike a killing blow even with a gun. There are non-lethal points on the body to shoot at, so why aim at the head? unless that's what you wanted to do in the first place, which would edge things closer to a murderous bent. Police are trained in this sort of thing, too (avoidance of using lethal force), and there's no reason why a citizen who sees fit to carry a gun (and is licenced to do so) ought not have gone through similar training. Are we looking for some kind of loophole here? because this scenario is very open-ended.

If you shoot at someone to kill them, it's murder, doesn't matter whether its self defense or not.

JimiTime

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

If you shoot at someone to kill them, it's murder, doesn't matter whether its self defense or not.

Nope. This may be a view you yourself have, but its certainly not the case.

DOC09UNAM

No it's the definition that i agree with myself.


"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent"

Fanny Cradock

If you are going to quote wiki may as well quote it without the modifications.

[URL="[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder[/url]"]Murder[/URL], as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Quite aside from our talent for wars, I would think that all countries recognise that lethal force is sometimes necessary within their own society. Consequently, most police forces are armed or have special armed units. So if, for example, an armed and dangerous gunman was at large then these bodies - who are acting on behalf of the State - are allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent further harm to innocent people. While there is a distinct possibility that the police (or whatever offshoot is in charge of the operation) may act completely inappropriately your definition of what constitutes murder isn't recognised.

DOC09UNAM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are going to quote wiki may as well quote it without the modifications.

[URL="[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder[/url]"]Murder[/URL], as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)

Quite aside from our talent for wars, I would think that all countries recognise that lethal force is sometimes necessary within their own society. Consequently, most police forces are armed or have special armed units. So if, for example, an armed and dangerous gunman was at large then these bodies - who are acting on behalf of the State - are allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent further harm to innocent people. While there is a distinct possibility that the police (or whatever offshoot is in charge of the operation) may act completely inappropriately your definition of what constitutes murder isn't recognised.

You should probably have put in the meaning of malice afterthought if you're going to quote wiki.

"Specifically in the criminal law, malice aforethought (or malice prepense) is the element of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") which must accompany the actus reus of death, in order to secure a conviction for murder under the common law. In other words, knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be someone's death."


I didn't quote wiki actually, if you must know.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Are you are saying that armed police forces are conducting murders when they kill? For example, is your opinion that Seung-Hui Cho and Raoul Moat were murdered and the police officers responsible for his death should be prosecuted?

DOC09UNAM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Are you are saying that armed police forces are conducting murders when they kill? For example, is your opinion that Seung-Hui Cho and Raoul Moat were murdered and the police officers responsible for his death should be prosecuted?

No it was to do with your definition of murder, nothing to do with anything else you said.

Fanny Cradock

Well, that was wiki's definition.

Anyway, given that you don't disagree with people being killed in certain cases, I would assume that you now reject this previous statement?

DOC09UNAM

No i still think if you shoot at someone to kill them, it's murder, whether it's murdering one person to save a thousand, it's still murder in my book.

Fanny Cradock

So the police officer who shot Seung-Hui Cho is a murder and should be charged as such?

DOC09UNAM

I never said anything like that at all, but yes, I would see that as murder.

JimiTime

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I never said anything like that at all, but yes, I would see that as murder.

That bit in bold is the issue. Its your perogative how you want to interpret the world, the english language etc etc. However, your statement below from earlier:

If you shoot at someone to kill them, it's murder, doesn't matter whether its self defense or not.

Is not preceeded by 'I think', or 'IMO'. Its presented as if its fact. It is extremely far from fact. You are free to hold whatever opinion you desire of course. You can think black is white if you wish. However, when you present this opinion as if its fact you'll likely be challenged. Its quite clear that the law, human nature and the english language is at odds with your opinion.

Fanny Cradock

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I never said anything like that at all, but yes, I would see that as murder.

I would think that most legal authorities and a fair whack of ordinary punters would disagree with you.

DOC09UNAM

If by action and intent, you cause the death of another, how is that not murder, can someone explain this to me??

Not trying to argue or anything, it's just the way I see it, I realise I should have put IMO and made it clear, apologies.

JimiTime

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

If by action and intent, you cause the death of another, how is that not murder, can someone explain this to me??

Not trying to argue or anything, it's just the way I see it, I realise I should have put IMO and made it clear, apologies.

In simple terms, it comes down to lawful and unlawful killing. To kill is not murder. A British soldier in WW2 will have shot with intent to kill German soldiers, however, he was not murdering the German soldiers. Murder refers to the illegality of the killing.

DOC09UNAM

Can you provide a definition where murder is shown as the illegal killing of someone?

JimiTime

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Can you provide a definition where murder is shown as the illegal killing of someone?

mur·der   /ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled[mur-der] Show IPA
–noun
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law

Slav

strobe wrote: »

Hey, I was just wondering if Christianity has anything to say on the following:

So you are walking down the street, you see someone about to stab another person. You are carrying a gun. So as they go to stab the other person, you point the gun at the back of the attackers head and get ready to shoot.

That would be totally wrong.

First of all, don't approach the attacker from behind with you gun ready. This way his victim is likely to be in the line of your fire as well.

Second, don't point your gun at the back of his head - at a short distance a pistolero does not have a great chance against a knife-man. Keep reasonable distance at which you can control him with the gun but he cannot control you with a knife.

In other words, we should say "no" to Hollywood!



Seriously, from the Christian perspective killing an armed enemy, especially when defending others, is not normally considered as murder. At the same time it's not seen as good thing either.

In the 7th century Emperor Phocas was pushing the idea that all killed on the battlefield are recognised by Church as saints and martyrs. Opposing to this, the episcopate said that it's only by oikonomia the solders are not denied the Holy Communion after the campaign so any veneration is out of question. They backed it up with St. Basil's the Great opinion:

"Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defence of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed." (Canon 13 of St. Basil the Great)

As I understand it, the followers of Christ should love everyone including their enemies. Not just love in our human sense but as Christ loves us (John 15:12). For us sinners it's practically impossible to have this kind of love on the battlefield hence this Canon 13 of St Basil.