Murder can't be justified, any more than hate can be. One wrong doesn't equal another wrong. There's either reverence for all life, or there truly isn't respect for any life. No person has the right to decide who shall live, who shall die, who is worthy of life, who is worthy of death. We're all sinners to one extreme or the other. It's only through God's grace and love that He forgives us. If more people held God in their souls, this world wouldn't be the mess that it is right now. Only God should play God.
"A murderer is only an extroverted suicide"
"Murder" and "homocide" are very different things. When asking that question, I think you need to know the differences.
If someone kicked in my door and pointed a gun at my friend, I would not hesitate to pull my pistol and put several holes in their body with the intention of the invader bleeding to death.
This would be "homocide" - the intentional kill of a human being.
I support self-defense. As a gun owner who has a gun for that specific purpose, I've thought long and hard about my ability and willingness to do so.
"Murder" very specifically deals with being "unlawful" or "illegal". If someone pissed you off, this is not a good reason to kill another human being. If that person threatened to harm you, this WOULD be (in my opinion.)
In some places, using deady force is illegal, and therefore, putting holes in them to defend a friend is illegal.
If the laws make killing an intruder illegal, I support murder. I'd much rather support changing the laws to allow a person to defend themselves, though. As we know from salvery being "lawfull", the laws are sometimes wrong.
I believe the term likely meant was manslaughter, now commonly referred to as justifiable manslaughter. His point: society allows instances where it is permissible to take the life of another. Your point seems to be that there may be none. So put yourself in the hypothetical scenario of home invasion. Are you suggesting that it would be better to allow said intruders to inflict harm on you and your family?
Murder is wrong. Period.
Murder and vengeance are two completely different things. Not saying vengeance is a good thing, but it is not the same as murder.
Scenario. A man grabs your child out of your backyard, takes her somewhere, rapes and tortures her for a couple of days and then kills her, just for fun. That is murder.
You go through all the pain of loss, and watch the investigation and see him arrested and tried and he get off on a technicality. You go after him and shoot him in the head. That is vengeance.
Would you have killed him if he had never taken your child? Would you have killed him, if the justice system had done its job?
Do you see the difference?
Of course it isn't right, and both people had their own reasons for committing the crime, but the second crime would never happen if the first hadn't happened. Did I say vengeance was right? No, but still vengeance is only murder in the legal definition. And I understand the need for a law that prevents us from killing anyone who killed someone we cared for. That would be a never ending chain of killings. So, yes it is wrong and must not be allowed, but one is understandable, while the other is despicable.
Playing god? Nah. Murder is just wrong. People are just picky on who they decide to kill.
Yes. Some people should be killed. There are situations in which death is justified. If justified it is not murder.
self defense the defense of my family's life or the defense of your family's life
Wrong. I'll stick to 45 hollow points and you try whatever tree huggers use. Let's see who survives.
2 center mass. If the threat is still advancing then here comes 3 and 4. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. Good luck in Hallmark land.
Some people got it coming
I don't think I could kill anyone... Ever.
Yes, so what in saying is... In my eyes it's never ok to kill.
For me, no. Never.
um, it tends to be, but murder isn't always wrong, i wouldn't try to argue that
hard to say - the answer requires such broad and deep clarifications, and says so much about the speaker, that it's very hard for that vital discussion to complete a successful journey
i can only think of dry, abstract generalisations, but that stuff usually happens on the ground in the heat of the moment, instantly or from a moment obsessed upon
by various examples presumably?