Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:26 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 1999 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30133
J.T.-san , Cecil -san ,Scott-san ,

Most excellent riposte ! You are finally demonstrating that certain 'intelligentsia' and Aristotelian logic i.e.,the highly developed subdivision of traditional logic critical to the debate of a Syllogistic argument ..to wit : one having two premises and a conclusion ! As we have seen , not all , in spite of some notable academic background , are endowed with such logical deployed ' brain highways' !!

The pacifist lotus eater , in spite of any studies in Anthropology he may have been exposed to , continues to deny the fact that it was the carnivorous hominid who took the upward path in evolution as opposed to his herbivorous brother who developed into the great apes of today ! In fact the religious bible thumping moralist would love to indict and bring to trial all proponents of Darwinism !

Clearly , but for the evolutionary man-killing natural condition of man , which included a vast array of weaponry , to include firearms, the lotus eaters would not be able to recline back on their fat asses today enjoying their forage !


Here is a definition of Killer worth of discussion : " A man who does not hold the lives of his adversary to be particularly important , who is highly skilled with his weapons who does not prey upon society and usually obeys its laws , but whom it is very dangerous to thwart " ! Yet I identify in this definition only a " potential " for killing !!

Scott you are correct in your observation about shooting to "stop" as opposed to " shooting to kill" …in general , the press, misinformed legalists and moralists , unfamiliar with firearms and tactical application of defensive pistolcraft , will not understand the concept of shooting to stop v. shooting to kill ! Please remind me to bring up this subject again in future posts for fascinating discussion !

For now , lets stay on the choices as posed by the dilemma That presupposes " killing" as the only way to stop the mass murderer !

And here our astute Cecil-san hits the nail on the head With : "The argument that fuels those of us who are totally against killing is that a) only God has the right to take a human life, that the shooter
will reap the karmic consequences of his actions. "

What is the 'moralistic' rebuttal to this charge ??

Peace ,






------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 1999 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 159
Location: Valrico, Florida, USA
Sensei,

In the previous thread you ask me some questions...I'll reply as best I can.

You said, It is the dilemma that presupposes killing is the only way to stop him ! You must address that question first !
OK. Actually, I thought I had, at least twice. Killing is the only way to stop him. He must be stopped. He will be killed. If it has not happened before I am presented with the opportunity, then I will do what is necessary to stop him...by you definition...I would kill him.

You said, You write "I agree with Sensei Mattson, "If the person is carrying a weapon,
he/she must have already made this decision.
Killing him is fine...disabling is better...doing nothing is not
acceptable."

This exercise underscores a common problem: Even if a gun is handy , many people will be unable to pull the trigger because they find it difficult to reconcile themselves to the concept of using lethal force upon a criminal to spare themselves or others from being brutally murdered! Also lots of people will freeze in panic with a gun in their hands but a useless appendage !


And such is the pity...I'd call it improper training...A poorly developed thought process...Criminal negleigence (although, prosecution probably won't happen)

Yes, I said " killing him is fine "

To the people who will challenge me...

How would I answer them ? ... I will vary that as each instance calls for. For the sincer I will answer as a sincer person deserves. For the fool in his folly, I hope to either not answer at all, or to answer as his folly deserves. The way an answer is given is very important...maybe sometimes more important than the content of the answer...I hope to know how in each case, when it is called for...That is how...(a play on words? partially but probably a better use of your question than the other possible interpetation Image )

What makes me think it is moral to kill him ? As I mentioned, I believe in a heirarchy of moral and ethical rules. I believe that this guide for life was put in place by the creator of the universe, and that He has communicated these to all of his creation. I recognize that not everybody will agree with me...how could our sniper...but that does not alter the facts of my life. A wise man has said that once you see truth, you can not un-see truth. To not stop the sniper is to become an accomplice (sp?) to his next murder.

One basic component that we each have is that we either view man as basically good with a proclivity for evil, or basically evil with a proclivity for good. I believe that latter.

Should I ask it??? You know I will Image

You realize don't you that with a few minor changes of the words...with little or no change in the intents...This discussion could be revolving around the topic of abortion....

The abortionist being the sniper.
The victims in the street below being the unborn babies he mutalates or posions, and the mothers he rips of their motherhood.
The person who is trying to stop the abortion from taking place would be the person on the roof with the handgun.

Of course the way I just laid it out wasn't as poetic as your presentation...

Mindset not only deals with a willingness to stop a sniper...sometimes it's less blatant than that...and much harder. If you believe that abortion is the taking of the life of an unborn baby...

for me your other questions are easy in comparison...especially when I look at my own life...

Peace,
Rick Liebespach



[This message has been edited by RickLiebespach (edited 06-06-99).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 1999 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
Sensei Van:

I wrote < I do not believe in the "no alternative", because life itself is nothing more than endless choices."

You wrote "This is a tough debate ; the dilemma proposal is not perfect but it serves to illustrate that in this life we can suddenly finds ourselves "dancing on a dime" ---caught between a rock and a hard place , if you will …..in torment over whether it would be or would have been-- better to do nothing or something in the face of seemingly very limited choices !"

My original statement was written very poorly. My apologies. What I meant to say was that I do not believe that there are many situations in real life that do not have a multitude of alternatives. When people say I did something because I had no choice they normally don't mean it.

In the context of a hypothetical questions (like the one proposed), then it is perfectly acceptable to limit the choices because thats the whole point. It is like what do you like more "Rock and Roll" or "Heavy Metal"? Maybe you answer Actually I like classical, but that wasn't the choices I gave. The question wasn't what type of music do you like most but of the choices which do you like more.

So, back to the points, the dilemma proposed is:

which do you prefer more, kill the madman, or not kill the madman for some reason (probably moral objection to the taking of life)?

As answered before, given those choices I think it is my moral responsibility to the community to kill the madman, as regretable as that might be.

On the choice between two evils : you , Jason, wrote < Do you believe that it is
"evil" to shoot the deranged man? Why? >

You wrote "It is not what I believe , it is what the dilemma presupposes ! And what some religious pacifist group will challenge : " isn't immoral to kill another human , for any reason ? Do two wrongs make a right ?"

Now here I disagree with you. A dilemma does not presuppose the quality of the choices. The quality of the choices can only come from the personal perspective of the chooser, and possibly argument for or against each choice (which affect the perspective of the chooser, of course). Some examples:

#1) "Completely legal, and tax free and with the guarentee that no harm will come because of either choice would you rather have: US$10,000 or US$1,000,000"?

Not a dilemma. The two choices have a clear quality to them. Who wouldn't take the million?

#2) "Would you tear the wings from a butterfly for $100? How about $1,000? How about $10,000? Would you do it in front of your child?" (Slightly modified from the book "A Book of Questions" - not sure on the author)

Each of these questions ask the chooser "What do you feel is the price/value of life no matter how minor, although in this case we have choosen the commonly valued beautiful butterfly?". The last asks "Would you be willing to send such a message to your child for money"?

Now, there is no quality of choice here, besides what you believe the "right" answer is.

Similarly, in this modified but equivalent question from the original scenario:

"Is it okay to kill somebody, who may be not be wholly responsible for his actions, who is killing other who are innocent of being killed by this individual?"

The answer is yes or no, but there is no quality of choice presupposed. Only what you believe the answer to be.

Therefore, with respect, I do wonder if perhaps at some level is you do believe that the original question is a choice between "two evils". Or maybe you are simply being the devil's advocate. Image

You wrote "Actually it has been argued that killing Hitler before he had a chance to start the war and murder all those innocents - or the man who is about to kill you- or others- is an act of compassion ….not upon the intended victims , but upon the would be killer himself !"

I find this to be quite plausible. I wonder if Hitler ever did regret the terrible outcomes of his choices. Perhaps knowing the harm he would cause maybe he would choose death over life. Then again maybe not.

Just out of curiousity, and maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen you answer the question.

Woudl you kill him or not? and most importantly why or why not?

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 1999 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
I object to the characterization of people in universities! First of all, I went to university! Second, I wanted to become a university professor! Third, I am just kidding about being insulted, I know what you mean about some people of the "elite" classes. Image

On Hitler:

Here are some sample questions.

#1) "Given the chance to travel back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power (lets say in his childhood) would you do so?"

Answer: No way. It would be very tempting, but the answer for me would be no. My simple reason being that killing Hitler could result in a future far worse than we have! Imagine if Germany had of gone to war after the invention of the a-bomb! Imagine if somebody even more nuts than Hitler came to power.

#2) "Assuming that no future worse than the one that exists would come to happen, and that for certain World War II and the Holocaust would not have happened, would you travel back in time and kill Hitler? Also, assume that this time travel is a one time affair. I.e. you will not have to deal with the problem of having to travel back in time to kill every troublemaker in history."

Answer: This last assumption is important. Without it, the answer is no. Because assuming you can go back multiple times, than what do you do? Do you travel back constantly killing every single "evil" person in history???? If so, than what becomes the meter stick of evilness??? I once threw a stone that broke a boy's arm ... should I die for my evilness? What if you travel back and kill King George the tyrant and so the US never revolts? Ugh ... it would be to heavy a burden to bear.

So, with all those assumptions in place the question becomes quite simply "Is it okay to kill one man who is guilty of directly causing the deaths of millions of innocent people?". And why?

Answer: Yes. The reasons why remain largely the same as for killing the madman in the tower. I believe that mankind must act in manner of community. And I would hope that I am willing to put my actions where my beliefs are.

I believe that life is not intrinsically sacred; however, this should not be misinterpreted as saying that life has no value! Life does have value, in fact it is of greater value than most anything else. Certainly of more value than money or material things. So this means to me, that life can be put on the "internal balance/scales" to see how it compares with most anything.

One life, especially that of a guilty one, does not have the weight of millions of other who die for his guilt and evil.

So, as a friend once asked me when we had this same debate, would I kill 6 people to save 7 people?!? The answer is no, and this is not hypocrisy (sp?). The fact that life has value and that the message that life has value has value itself! This tips the scales in favor of the 6 over 7. Perhaps in Hitlers case this means that his life in combination with the "life has value" message that it is the weight of 10 or 100 vs millions, and that is why he still loses.

So where is the line?

Do you kill 5 for 10? How about 3 for 30? How about 1 for 100? Who knows where that line is, perhaps there is no clear cut line because each life itself has varying degrees of worth depending on a multitude of factors. Some of these factors are obvious. Some are not.

Now, my entire belief rests on one key stone... "Life has value, but is not sacred". This is not provable! It is an axiom (axioms by definition, at least in math, are not provable). Just like "Life is sacred" is not provable. It too is nothing more than an axiom. This is why as J.D. pointed out, in some ways these questions/debates are pointless. Ultimately, it comes down to what set of axioms form your core beliefs. Although, I believe that since these discussions can give a differing point of view, and allow us to at least learn about ourselves they do serve some purpose.

In Hitler's case, there are other motivations. He is a guilty and evil man. So, the principle that if good people do nothing evil wins, certainly echoes in my ears. I believe that good people must fight against evil. Therefore, how could I turn my back on the chance to rid history its greatest modern evil! If I turn my back on this evil, then looking the other way becomes only easier. Soon, enough I am a source for the evils of society itself. Not by commission but by giving evil my de facto vote that it is okay! It is not okay.

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 1999 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30133
Jason -san ,Rick -san ,

Thank you ! What you write is very appropriate !

Let's remember that the whole purpose of these discussions is to program a certain mind set by bringing lots of previously espoused / analyzed concepts to a head in stark reality ; Thus the value of this debate which still catches many in outright denial !

Most of you say " kill" the sniper ! But can you really do it and justify the killing to your moral self ? Subconsciously you will feel the weight of the deed forever , There will be depression brought about by unfavorable news coverage , allegations of incorrect use of deadly force , a civil suit by the gunman's family at the prodding of the ambulance chasers , etc., but the worst , most insidious repercussions will come from your own reaction to the " public's reaction " of the killing ! Think again !! Plenty of moral objectors out there will have a field day with you !

You will have , flashbacks , appetite disturbance, impotence, family stress, harassing phone calls , slanderous comments by friends, not only to you but to members of your family and your children at school !

You will suffer the "Mark Of Cain " complex [ society will look upon you no longer as the next door neighbor but the person who killed another human being ]

You two have provided us with some very excellent reasons to morally justify such a killing to yourself ! Yes , you would find it morally acceptable killing the deranged roof sniper and Hitler because they are murderers of the innocents and you would be saving the lives of many more about to die !

But would you still kill Hitler or the deranged man in the tower, if, in spite of their malevolent intent to mass murder known to you, They were still innocent at the time you pulled the trigger , i.e., their killing had not yet started , but just about to begin !

What other moral favorable arguments could you draw upon to give you strength to pull the trigger ? As in "Please God give me the strength and conviction to shoot " ?

Peace ,


------------------
Van Canna


[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 06-07-99).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 159
Location: Valrico, Florida, USA
I believe that no one is ever condemed or punished for what they did not do. In this senerio, as you have provided it...It would be wrong to kill the sniper until he has passed the point of no return...Probably the first pull of the trigger.

That is not to say that he isn't already sinful enough in the eyes of a Holy God, to have condemnation as his just reward...But at that point in time, only God has the just perspective and perrogative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30133
Jason -san ,

Excellent riposte, very stimulating …thank you !

I wrote "It is not what I believe , it is what the dilemma
presupposes !

Perhaps it would have been better to say " it is what the dilemma would suggest or would imply"! At times of sudden impact by life's ugliness ; when put in a position of dealing with grievous human problems , our brain is flooded with amazing imbecilic theories about their solutions , especially true in the case of people who live in ivory towers [ i.e., they teach at colleges or universities] and are far removed from reality !

You wrote "I wonder if Hitler ever did regret
the terrible outcomes of his choices. Perhaps knowing the harm
he would cause maybe he would choose death over life."

Very astute observation on a binary plane with Cecil-san !

For the purpose of this exercise , could you gentlemen provide then a more detailed , acceptable [to yourself] moral rationale for killing Hitler BEFORE he had a chance to start the war and slaughter the innocent ? Perhaps you already have , but I am looking for more---*smile* !

When the thread is over I will offer my agreement/disagreement with the outlined beliefs …for now lets keep this fascinating mind twister very much open ended on my part !

Peace ,




------------------
Van Canna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 6:53 am 
Some really good dialogue going on now.

Some people may have thought my short response meant that I "apparently can kill with impunity". This is simply not true. It simply means that I have made the decision to kill if killing is needed. I do not know if I would have the courage to do so as I have (thankfully) never been placed in that situation. I am fully aware (at least intellectually) of the after effects so well pointed out by Van Sensei.

The fact of the matter is that anyone truly studying karate has the ability to possibly take a life. The fact of the matter is that anyone may find themselves in a situation where they must choose to take a life or not. The fact of the matter is, if you think you are going to make your mind up in that instance, you are probably going to die.

Yes Van Sensei placed before everyone what seemed like a lopsided question. The only way to stop senseless mass murder is to kill. But really did he not just place before each of us the choice we must make when studying a lethal art? Do we kill when justified or not? That is the question before us. So those who thought my "kill him" answer was smug, or off the cuff, or showed some signs of moral lacking, are very very wrong. I have simply search my soul for this answer already. I have looked into myself and decided that if it was required I am willing to take a life and face the consequences. If I have not made that choice before the time comes then I may hesitate. Yes, I may do so anyway, but the head of the Canadian RCMP Tactical Response Unit made it very clear that you greatly reduce the risk of hesitation if you have answered as many moral questions before hand as possible.

This does not mean that it will be without consequences. There will be those Couch Heroes who will tell you how they would have saved everyone without killing the guy. There will be those who will condemn you for taking a life. But I truly do not feel that those would bother me. I am more likely to be bothered by my own rerunning of the situation to see if I could have taken an alternate route. Ahh, but that would be between me and my therapist.

Take one life to save 30, how about take 2 to save 20 etc. In logic this is called a slippery slope argument and is logically invalid. These are actually separate questions but they get you by moving up a small increment at a time. If I pull one hair from his head is he bald? How about when I pull another? At what point does one more hair make him bald? Bad argument.

How do I justify it? Don't know if I could put it into words, I looked inside and saw that I would.

What about some of you folk on the previous thread that wandered all over the place trying to get around the decision, if your life, or a member of your family's life, depends on you killing, will your hesitation get them killed? Understand that I am not saying that you must kill, just get the decision made so that your reactions (whatever they are) can be without hesitation.

Rick


Top
  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 9:26 am 
Rich,

Now you bring God into it? What about all the atheists? Do you think they care one iota about God? What about when the heat is on? An even if you are a god-fearing man, would you think of God at that moment? I suspect in the passion of the moment, you might not be thinking of anything.
<hr>
And Van,

How can you say the shooter is innocent before he pulls the trigger? Wow! If the shooter was innocent, he never would have been there in the first place. As far as I am concerned, the killing started as soon as the decision to move in the direction of doing so had begun and progressed past some variably defined point in time and in the mind sometime before the shooter had positioned himself to take aim because he had already taken aim. But "You cannot tell what evil lurks...," can you?

You talk about flashbacks? Are they really that bad? I wonder what would happen if someone pulled a trigger and the gun misfired and nothing happened. Would that person stiil suffer flashbacks -- even years later -- provided he was still standing? And if so, how would it affect his life? Is it something the person who almost took a life could deal with?

But if someone wants to justify his act before he guns-down a shooter, I suppose all he needs to do is to loudly yell 'HEY!' at the shooter to receive immediate response coupled with obvious justification.

------------------
Allen - [email]uechi@ici.net">uechi@ici.net</A> - <A HREF="http://www.uechi-ryu.org[/email]

[This message has been edited by Allen M. (edited 06-08-99).]


Top
  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 01, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 244
Location: Marblehead, MA USA
(Some of this sounds like bull.)
There are people who have flashbacks about whether they scratched their asses this morning and people who analyze things to death delaying action and actually making inaction a subconscious decision. Let alone the post mortems, ad nauseum.
(Reading between the lines.)
Most successful people are decision makers and I doubt whether anyone who responded would hesitate at all in their personal decision, killing or not killing.
(What I've gleaned from this.)
Considering the average person writes at about 100 words per minute and thinks at about 1000 I think it's great to get these moral feelings out now, as the gentleman mentioned about the RCMPs.

Ant'ny, (nevermind)? I like that. Now I'm interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 61
Location: dartmouth, ns canada
Kill him.

If it was how Van wrote, and I had no other options, then that is what I would do. I liked Rick Wilson's response above. It wasn't something I had to think about or justify. When I read the initial post, I had a clear response. Like Rick, I just looked inside and the answer was there.
Hopefully, I would not waste any precious seconds fumbling with the gun.

And as for the aftermath, the sleeplessness, the public outcry, the overwhelming guilt...I have no doubt that I would suffer these and more.

But I believe that is nothing compared to what I would have suffered within myself had I ran.

Natalie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 157
Location: Evansville, IN, USA
Q#1: But can you really do it

Maybe. I would hope so, but maybe my nerves would fail me at the last. I doubt it since I have predecided my actions and accepted the consequences as necessary (see below).

Q#2: and justify the killing to your moral self ?"

Yes.

Van wrote: "But would you still kill Hitler or the deranged man in the tower, if, in spite of their malevolent intent to mass murder known to you, They were still innocent at the time you pulled the trigger , i.e., their killing had not yet started , but just about to begin!"

Hitler is guilty as a matter of historical fact. If I were to travel back in time then there would be no doubt what-so-ever. If I had of lived in his era would I have killed him before he started the war ... lets say before the annexation of Poland (i.e. without foresight)? No. At that time there would be no indication of the real harm he would cause. He made a lot of speeches, but that isn't the same thing.

The sniper, on the other hand, is guilty by clear intent or possible intent. Even if his gun is empty he is suggesting that he is a serious threat to innocent lives. In Canada, you can be arrested for armed robbery by sticking you hand in your pocket and pretending to have a gun. A similar process is at work here. He has a gun, he is pointing it at people, he is rambling insanely. The threat/potentional threat must be neutralized. Now, if I KNEW his gun was empty and that, in fact, he had no other ammo or lethal means, than I would not kill him.

Q#3: What other moral favorable arguments could you draw upon to give you strength to pull the trigger ? As in "Please God give me the strength and conviction to shoot " ?

"If good people do nothing, evil wins."

Topic #1: The consequences. The quote the Borg "Consequences are irrelevent." Image Okay, maybe they are irrelevent but they are acceptable. My life has no more meaning (other than its value) than anybody elses. So the scales here are one life (the sniper) maybe two (my life may or may not be ruined) vs. many innocents. Even with my life on the balance it does not outweigh the lives of the many people in my community.

Now, would I suffer those consequences? Maybe some of them yes. Certainly, those outside of my person would happen. The "ambulance chasers", liberal media, etc. However, inside my own heart I firmly believe there would be peace. I have decided that these courses of action are those that I will take. My wife knows this, and she accepts it too. I have intervened against evil action before, and felt no ill of it (never killed anybody though). I have also stood idly by and let evil have its way. I regret this, and it brings me great suffering. Even if I view this from my own personal selfishness, in this scenario I must act (like Natalie) for myself if not for anybody else.

Morals, especially truth, are the great shield, if you believe in them. If you don't then they will crumble and fall when you need them most, just like our Karate skills. And just like Karate, if you betray your morals when it is convienent for you (Karate: don't train hard), I guarentee they will betray you when it is convienent for them (Karate: on the street).

Osu!
Jason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 1999 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 311
Location: Washington DC area, USA
This is an argument that can go on endless. On the one hand, you can argue that it is absolutely wrong to kill, no matter what. On the other, you can argue the good of the many vs the few. And if you bring in God, you can argue that God forbids you to kill the shooter, or that God is using you as an instrument for saving people by killing the shooter.

What I think is interesting is how easy some people think it is to "shoot to maim" or will cry out "just shoot him in the arm". I brought this thread up with a friend of mine whose response was simply "I'd just shoot him in the leg or something or the arm." She, of course, never shot a gun a day in her life (now don't think I'm down on women, the gender is merely factual information). It's not that easy, especially when your heart is pounding at over 150 bpm.

I think when it comes down to it I would fill the shooter full of holes. Some of you probably think that because I can argue the other side as well it means that I would let an idiot make swiss cheese out of the general public. That's not true. And yes, I can deal with the flashbacks.

If it is his time to die, he will. Who knows, you could shoot him totally intending to kill him and he NOT die because he is on some drug that is making his system work overtime. I believe he is going to die anyway by either the cops or the electric chair.

But there are other options. Depending on how high up you are, you could always throw him over the side and stop him that way, assuming you have the strength to do so. That could kill him, or then again, it may not. You could knock him over the head with the gun if you totally feel bad about shooting the guy, kick him a few times, disarm him, and hold him until you get help. Of course, you then run the risk of being shot once the cops get there because they will probably think that YOU were the one shooting!

Whatever you decide, the biggest crime in my opinion would be to do NOTHING, unless you are paralyzed with fear. Nobody so far has ever considered that they may be too damned shocked or scared to even THINK about doing anything. What if THAT happens? Then he turns the gun on YOU? Now what? You still cannot kill him? He shoots you, and you feel it, yet you don't die. You still have your gun in your hand and can pull off another shot. Are you still going to say "Buddah Bless You??" The circumstances may take on a life of there own, and you may even kill the guy before you realize it!

Besides, the shooter is probably going to die anyway once the SWAT team gets a bead on him, or he'll either turn the gun on himself and commit suicide, or he'll get the chair or death by lethal injection.

A chop-saki flick of all things may have the answer to this dilema; it's called Shaolin vs. Lama. In it, a pupil is told by the teacher that Kungfu teaches monks how to kill. Killing goes against their belief, so how do they justify this? They simply try not to kill, and only use their skill to protect others. But if there is no other real alternative, well....



------------------
Email: <A HREF="mailto:creativebrother@yahoo.com">creativebrother@yahoo.com</A>
Web Page: http://creativebrother.freehosting.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 1999 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 30133
As some of you are discovering , this dilemma can become a diabolical emotional trap ! We played this game at a legal seminar , and I swear some folks almost came to blows !

1] Rick Liebespach,

"It would be
wrong to kill the sniper until he has passed the point of no
return...Probably the first pull of the trigger….."

What if you were presented with this counterpoint : "The first pull of the trigger will result in the death of an innocent child down below ! How will you face the family of the dead child knowing well that you had the power of life over his death by the simple expedient of pulling the trigger of your gun ? How will you face yourself in the years to come when that child's limp body will come to you in dreams ? How will you be able to face and talk and explain to your own child the decision you made ?

Then you write "That is not to say that he isn't already sinful enough in the eyes
of a Holy God, to have condemnation as his just reward...But at
that point in time, only God has the just perspective and
prerogative."

Counterpoint: the old testament specifically authorizes taking human life justly : " Thou shalt not suffer a thief to live " { Deut :24:10 }

2] Rick Wilson __

" the head of the Canadian RCMP Tactical Response Unit made
it very clear that you greatly reduce the risk of hesitation if you
have answered as many moral questions before hand as possible."

This is a most valid lesson here , one instilled very thoroughly in the brain of a student--- of judicious application of lethal force ---at The LFI institute ! This type of " emotional conditioning " should be mandated for every Budoka ; yet we make such a big deal of body conditioning and disdain " emotional intelligence" !

" if
your life, or a member of your family's life, depends on you killing,
will your hesitation get them killed? Understand that I am not
saying that you must kill, just get the decision made so that your
reactions (whatever they are) can be without hesitation."

Thanks Rick excellent flow of thought ! Very important concept but constantly denied by the lotus eaters !

3] Allen ;

"And Van,

How can you say the shooter is innocent before he pulls the
trigger? Wow! If the shooter was innocent, he never would have
been there in the first place."

Glad some of you are wide awake ! Thanks Allen ! Anyone else with doubts about the shooter's innocence { Legal or moral } ?

4] Mike Hurney ;

"Most successful people are decision makers and I doubt whether
anyone who responded would hesitate at all in their personal
decision, killing or not killing."

Some would ; some would not ; some could not-- even if they wanted to absent certain programming !

5] Natalie ;

"Kill him." ___ "Like Rick, I just looked inside and
the answer was there.
Hopefully, I would not waste any precious seconds fumbling with
the gun. And as for the aftermath, I believe that is nothing compared to what I would have
suffered within myself had I ran."

This almost says it all !Thanks Nat !!

QUESTION

" : What other moral favorable arguments could you draw upon
to give you strength to pull the trigger ? As in "Please God give
me the strength and conviction to shoot " ?

6] Jason : "If good people do nothing, evil wins."

Cecil; "And if you bring in God, you can argue that God forbids you to kill
the shooter, or that God is using you as an instrument for saving
people by killing the shooter.!

Now we are really getting somewhere ! What if we were to argue that God is also saving the shooter by using you as the compassionate instrument to kill him !! What message would you garner from this ?

7] Cecil : "What I think is interesting is how easy some people think it is to
"shoot to maim" or will cry out "just shoot him in the arm". I
brought this thread up with a friend of mine whose response was
simply "I'd just shoot him in the leg or something or the arm."

Ha ! The cry of the tactically inept who would spew forth such nonsense ! To start with the defensive shooter has no clue as to a deranged criminal's mind state, programmed mind set , alcohol or drugs he may be conditioned to or affected by ! Remember there are no "MAGIC BULLETS" and you must understand the mechanics and definition of "immediate incapacitation"__ not many do __ Think of how many of you really believe in the magic of your "ultimate style's stopping or disabling blows "You are in for a big---very big surprise if you get into a real fight with a worthy opponent as opposed to a make believe one !

Then there is this most compelling argument by the real force experts in contrast to some of you "hands wringing" compassionate-kA ! ___ A gun is a deadly weapon __ and we must accept that if a criminal needs shooting , then he might need killing or we really have no justification for using the gun ! We must expect that in shooting to stop , we may be shooting to kill because we have been trained to know that in order to "immediately incapacitate " or to STOP , we must shoot center mass --which usually kills , and if we experience a failure to stop with the initial "double tap "to center mass , we will need to go to the brain for a stopping shot , which in stopping , might well kill !

Why not keep shooting center mass , some would argue , instead of the brain ? The police elite know that if the assailant doesn't' stop with the initial double tap , his system will shut down and absorb more center mass shots with seeming impunity ! Police files are well documented with incidents of berserk criminals taking dozens of pistol bullets to the body and then killing the defensive police officer before collapsing ! { Cecil , when you say you would shoot the criminal full of holes , be sure to move in on him as you fire for a brain shot if he does not stop }

8] Cecil ; "Whatever you decide, the biggest crime in my opinion would be to
do NOTHING, unless you are paralyzed with fear. Nobody so far
has ever considered that they may be too damned shocked or
scared to even THINK about doing anything."

That of course is the primary key to salvation ! Great karate skills or weapons skills , mean nothing if not triggered under the grip of the "cocktail" __ Jeff Cooper , the lethal combat guru , writes that a normal human being is not programmed to stop/kill without emotional preparation ; that the decision to act triggers only from a properly conditioned mind preset to respond in a certain manner to certain kinds of stimuli , according to hypothetical decisions made in advance and" fed into his computer"

9] Dr.X ,

"I apologize, but one cannot justify not killing the
creep in the confines of your question. Fine. Now turn to one of
your real situations. Would we strike/kill/defend ourselves."

No apology needed ; you are right on "target" !!

------------------
Van Canna


[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 06-08-99).]

[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited 06-08-99).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MORAL DILEMMA--CONTINUED
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 1999 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 311
Location: Washington DC area, USA
Here's another twist, for those of us who would be quick to kill the shooter (something I found by the magic of serendipity):

"Perhaps the most famous is the case of Charles Whitman, who in the 1960s climbed to the top of a tower in Austin, Texas, and began shooting at passersby. He killed seventeen people. Harvard neurosurgeon Vernon Mark believes there is a link between a brain tumor and Whitman's murderous assault....'A postmortem later showed that he had [a] brain tumor."
from <ul>The Brain[/list] by Richard Resak, M.D., pp. 139-140.

NOW how would you feel if you offed the guy and found out he had a brain tumor. So in a sense, he really IS innocent! BUT: does it STILL give him the right to kill other people? Shouldn't he STILL be stopped/killed anyway because when you meet him on the roof you don't KNOW he has a tumor? Would you NOW feel guilty if you'd killed him then later found out he was merely sick? Does this give his family the right to sue you now? Will the public then turn on you for killing a sick person?

Huh? Huh? (personally I wouldn't feel bad about it, but remember you are talking to a guy who was dense enough to become a marine reservist at 17 and only recently realized that his honorable discharge was one of the best things that ever happened to him!)

Cecil



------------------
Email: <A HREF="mailto:creativebrother@yahoo.com">creativebrother@yahoo.com</A>
Web Page: http://creativebrother.freehosting.net


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group