CDZ When does the sanctity of life run out ?

[night_son]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

I am practical. Not all life is sacred. Be realistic.
Yes, i know an embryo has DNA from father as well as mother, but that embryo lives in mother’s body, and therefore it’s mainly her responsibility. Yes, she should take care of her offspring, but YOU do not factor in her issues with pregnancy & difficulties of her life.

All life is indeed sacred. Even the life of the criminal stealing my car or attempting to kill me. Life is situational I agree yet the strange and disturbing dichotomy--we all struggle with--is that an inalterable absolute definition of right and wrong, a foundation for values--must exist.

Evolutionary psychology vis a vis inalienable familial structure and the indisputable cycle of human life. Does all instinct begin with self or the with the family structure: Father, mother, child? Viruses, diseases, syndromes, birth defects all interrupt the human reproductive cycle. Is the abortionist not assuming the very supreme role of natural selector? Does the performer and promoter of abortion not dare to become the very deified force of natural selection itself? Tell me about God again and how we believers dare to become godlike in all its obvious hypocrisy when the performer of abortion has decided to fulfill that role first.

If I am the father I am one half responsible for the developing child and must have equal choice. If laws have no right to dictate over a women's body are you then screaming at me that only God can and must?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The lives of the innocent are sacred.

And thieves in the process of robbing other people are putting their own lives at risk. The OP does not seem to understand that. That being said, I would rather the thief experience jail time.

Its about proportionality. Im not particularly religious but "thou salt not kill" seems to be good advice.

The sixth commandment must cover car jackers ?

Not sure where the salt comes into it, but its "murder" not kill.

 

[Care4all]

The “sanctity of life” for “pro-life” thinkers revolves around their perception of the person being “good” or “evil”. If evil, go ahead & kill them. That belief system (evil vs good) is very simplistic, like their preferred folklore (religion).

For those that believe people learn their behaviors within social context (beyond basic temperament), their perception of sancity of life is based on overall “fault”. Did the bad boy or girl learn their thoughts/behaviors from parents, neighborhood friends/enemies, from effects of being unfortunate economically, socially, or health-wise?

The biggest hypocricy is from those who want less govenment interference in a person’s life, yet they want to dictate what a pregnant woman should do, and want laws against assisted suicide.

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

I am practical. Not all life is sacred. Be realistic.
Yes, i know an embryo has DNA from father as well as mother, but that embryo lives in mother’s body, and therefore it’s mainly her responsibility. Yes, she should take care of her offspring, but YOU do not factor in her issues with pregnancy & difficulties of her life.

All life is indeed sacred. Even the life of the criminal stealing my car or attempting to kill me. Life is situational I agree yet the strange and disturbing dichotomy--we all struggle with--is that an inalterable absolute definition of right and wrong, a foundation for values--must exist.

Evolutionary psychology vis a vis inalienable familial structure and the indisputable cycle of human life. Does all instinct begin with self or the with the family structure: Father, mother, child? Viruses, diseases, syndromes, birth defects all interrupt the human reproductive cycle. Is the abortionist not assuming the very supreme role of natural selector? Does the performer and promoter of abortion not dare to become the very deified force of natural selection itself? Tell me about God again and how we believers dare to become godlike in all its obvious hypocrisy when the performer of abortion has decided to fulfill that role first.

If I am the father I am one half responsible for the developing child and must have equal choice. If laws have no right to dictate over a women's body are you then screaming at me that only God can and must?

Was it wrong to rip the babies and children from the arms of the refugee mothers from Central America seeking asylum?

Is it wrong, if they do not qualify for asylum to deport these indigent people WITHOUT their children? Or should they be deported together?

 

[night_son]

No......you missed it...pro-life protects the innocent unborn.... as an adult, making decisions, you may be evil to your core, but it is only when you act out on that evil that you need to be killed...if you take an innocent human life.

We don't want to prevent a woman from doing anything other than killing her baby.....she can do anything else she wants.....even give up the baby when it is born.

No, you missed it. The unborn is the full responsibility of the mother who harbors it.
It is a PERSONAL matter, until birth, and the government should respect that.

Instead, government funds should be spent on those wanted babies that were born AND born unhealthy or in a poor environment, but YOUR government struggles with that!

No. The unborn was never solely the mother's possession. The moment she received the father's genetic material and life was conceived it became a combination of mother AND father's DNA.

Abortion is the ultimate lack of personal responsibility. Mother's duty is to defend the child growing in her womb. You promote murder, you know it, you revel in it. It's okay to admit you were wrong and that all life is sacred.

I am practical. Not all life is sacred. Be realistic.
Yes, i know an embryo has DNA from father as well as mother, but that embryo lives in mother’s body, and therefore it’s mainly her responsibility. Yes, she should take care of her offspring, but YOU do not factor in her issues with pregnancy & difficulties of her life.

All life is indeed sacred. Even the life of the criminal stealing my car or attempting to kill me. Life is situational I agree yet the strange and disturbing dichotomy--we all struggle with--is that an inalterable absolute definition of right and wrong, a foundation for values--must exist.

Evolutionary psychology vis a vis inalienable familial structure and the indisputable cycle of human life. Does all instinct begin with self or the with the family structure: Father, mother, child? Viruses, diseases, syndromes, birth defects all interrupt the human reproductive cycle. Is the abortionist not assuming the very supreme role of natural selector? Does the performer and promoter of abortion not dare to become the very deified force of natural selection itself? Tell me about God again and how we believers dare to become godlike in all its obvious hypocrisy when the performer of abortion has decided to fulfill that role first.

If I am the father I am one half responsible for the developing child and must have equal choice. If laws have no right to dictate over a women's body are you then screaming at me that only God can and must?

Was it wrong to rip the babies and children from the arms of the refugee mothers from Central America seeking asylum?

Is it wrong, if they do not qualify for asylum to deport these indigent people WITHOUT their children? Or should they be deported together?

From the standpoint of an uncle to four children under age eighteen, a stepfather and eldest sibling, the emotional response must be, "no". That being said, an equally strong bias arises within me for the well being read defense of my aforementioned family. I admit freely to seeing the immigrant wave as a threat to family and nation. The answer then becomes separate them if necessary to either protect them from coyotes or to expedite their parents' legal disposition and then reunite and deport.

When it comes down to protecting one's own versus saving the stranger it's basically impossible to not wade into hypocrisy.

On the face of it no family should be separated. Isn't there enough wrong doing to go around? Blame the immigrant parents for taking their children on a perilous voyage. Blame Mexico for not offering them asylum. Blame ICE for separating them, locking them up and guarding them. Blame our government and in turn our President for not acting on highest moral ground?

The answer must boil down to whose security and expenditure of public treasure is more important. Do we assimilate and provide for every immigrant child? What about the millions of American children in foster care?

if you or I were a God and felt the way we do about the absolute importance and value of the family structure we could pull out some lightening bolts take aim and make it all right. We are mortal. So are our leaders. So is our national treasure finite. Who must come first? Our families or theirs? Can we accommodate both? Should we?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

T

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

Let's revisit your chain of thought, which I respect by the way, as it pertains just to a single owner and his car, and not a all cars sitting in driveways and parking lots across the world.

You apparently place great value on human life as do I. Therefore can we not view an owner's automobile as an extension of preserving their life in that intrinsically it can be viewed (by the owner) as a protector and sustainer of life through one or more of its many uses which cannot be fulfilled if stolen.

Please try to separate the concept of the car as an inanimate material object/possession from monetary value placed on it and instead recognize it as a life support system for the owner. If you can get that far you might be able to see how the car owner's assigned value in the object transcends its material value and becomes both life sustaining and vital to his existence. Not all car owners have excellent insurance coverage and police recovery of stolen vehicles can take some time.

Proceeding forward with the automobile as a vital extension of the owner's life, killing the car thief while in the act of stealing it is in defense of lives; the owner's and his family's. In this way the killing is not for material sake or possession but rather true self defense.

I'll grant you that if you have excellent insurance which includes car rental coverage and you are a multiple car family, then the higher moral ground in that situation could be keeping your distance (while calling the police) and allowing the thief to steal it. The caveat being that imo allowing the vehicle to be stolen puts sole responsibility in the owner's hands for whatever the thief might then do with the taken vehicle.

You could get hung for stealing a horse back in the wild west. Ive seen the films.
On that basis.
If you were in the middle of the desert today and someone was stealing your car then shooting them might be justified - because your life was being threatened.
However.
If someone was stealing it from the Mall car park then I dont think it could be justified.

I am not familiar with US car insurance but a fully comp policy in the UK covers theft. Its a pain in the arse but you do get your money in the end. You also get a courtesy car for the duration.

So killing the thief would not be justified.
So I think we nearly agree ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

Thats an interesting point. The state doesnt execute thieves so why should the public get that right ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

I wouldn't kill over a car......in the one thread I started about a fireman, the car jacker tried to run over the victim, who then shot the car thief......that wasn't about the car, that was about attempted murder.

I think for clarity, we need to know..... is this theft a car jacking? Or does the victim simply see the thief taking the car?

Just taking the car. Or some other material goods. No violence involved.

Is the owner at any way involved? For example, stealing the car in the middle of the night when no one is around is different than if the owner is right there when it is happening...

The owner can see it happening but is not in any danger.

 

[night_son]

T
Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

Let's revisit your chain of thought, which I respect by the way, as it pertains just to a single owner and his car, and not a all cars sitting in driveways and parking lots across the world.

You apparently place great value on human life as do I. Therefore can we not view an owner's automobile as an extension of preserving their life in that intrinsically it can be viewed (by the owner) as a protector and sustainer of life through one or more of its many uses which cannot be fulfilled if stolen.

Please try to separate the concept of the car as an inanimate material object/possession from monetary value placed on it and instead recognize it as a life support system for the owner. If you can get that far you might be able to see how the car owner's assigned value in the object transcends its material value and becomes both life sustaining and vital to his existence. Not all car owners have excellent insurance coverage and police recovery of stolen vehicles can take some time.

Proceeding forward with the automobile as a vital extension of the owner's life, killing the car thief while in the act of stealing it is in defense of lives; the owner's and his family's. In this way the killing is not for material sake or possession but rather true self defense.

I'll grant you that if you have excellent insurance which includes car rental coverage and you are a multiple car family, then the higher moral ground in that situation could be keeping your distance (while calling the police) and allowing the thief to steal it. The caveat being that imo allowing the vehicle to be stolen puts sole responsibility in the owner's hands for whatever the thief might then do with the taken vehicle.

You could get hung for stealing a horse back in the wild west. Ive seen the films.
On that basis.
If you were in the middle of the desert today and someone was stealing your car then shooting them might be justified - because your life was being threatened.
However.
If someone was stealing it from the Mall car park then I dont think it could be justified.

I am not familiar with US car insurance but a fully comp policy in the UK covers theft. Its a pain in the arse but you do get your money in the end. You also get a courtesy car for the duration.

So killing the thief would not be justified.
So I think we nearly agree ?

I think we do.

Car insurance in the US comes in many package levels with increasing price points based on ascending quality of coverage. For instance I had to replace two windshields in as many months on a new car in 2015 due to gravel kicked up off the road by tractor trailer trucks on my way to work. Big hassle with my insurance company.

But anyway, I do think we're closer to agreeing. If one can strip away some of the emotion meaning me when it comes to defending family, then I am willing to use some uh um American common sense to proceed. If we're talking middle of the day at the mall then that means I'd have my cell phone and daylight and lots of witnesses in most cases.

So firing a weapon in a crowded parking lot unless we're talking Walking Dead levels of monsters would be a really dumb thing to do. So my response is: let the thief live while holding a gun on him while waiting for the police, But back up a second. What if child family members were along and all this is going down some distance away from us. Easy. Call the police. Flag down mall security. File an insurance claim. Have to think of the little ones first.

 

[flacaltenn]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

Thats an interesting point. The state doesnt execute thieves so why should the public get that right ?

Robbers get executed all the time by the police. Robbing banks or convenience stores and being armed and threatening. Or taking hostages. A home break-in is a hostage situation. If there is threat to you or family on your premises by someone with the MEANS to cause harm --- they never need to do that again..

Police would take them out if they didn't follow instructions or disarm. I can also..

 

[flacaltenn]

OP is from a country that prosecutes home owners for injuries incurred by burglars even if there is no confrontation. Can't put up barbed wire or mesh reinforced glass on you tool shed. The thief might cut them themselves.

Also from yesterday, The UK now wants to "blunt kitchen knives" because it's the WEAPONS that are the problem, certainly NOT the criminals. Right Tommy?

With Knife Crimes on Rise, British Judge Calls for Duller Kitchen Knives

 

[Likkmee]

The lives of the innocent are sacred.

And the life of the others are terminated

 

[Tilly]

The lives of the innocent are sacred.

And thieves in the process of robbing other people are putting their own lives at risk. The OP does not seem to understand that. That being said, I would rather the thief experience jail time.

Its about proportionality. Im not particularly religious but "thou salt not kill" seems to be good advice.

The sixth commandment must cover car jackers ?

It’s thou shalt not MURDER, Tammy.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP is from a country that prosecutes home owners for injuries incurred by burglars even if there is no confrontation. Can't put up barbed wire or mesh reinforced glass on you tool shed. The thief might cut them themselves.

Also from yesterday, The UK now wants to "blunt kitchen knives" because it's the WEAPONS that are the problem, certainly NOT the criminals. Right Tommy?

With Knife Crimes on Rise, British Judge Calls for Duller Kitchen Knives

You quote an old judge at his retirement party as an example of UK law ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

God saw that we were being evil in our punishments towards his children on Earth, so he gave us a commandment to stop our cruelty....

He said our punishments were excessive!

And we should follow this commandment....

NO MORE THAN

An eye for an eye,

NO MORE THAN

A Tooth for a tooth,

NO MORE THAN
...
A life, for a life....




Not one of God's children, should be killed for stealing, stealing is not taking the life of another....

No one in our JUSTICE system gets capital punishment, for stealing.... otherwise, that would not be just....

Thats an interesting point. The state doesnt execute thieves so why should the public get that right ?

Robbers get executed all the time by the police. Robbing banks or convenience stores and being armed and threatening. Or taking hostages. A home break-in is a hostage situation. If there is threat to you or family on your premises by someone with the MEANS to cause harm --- they never need to do that again..

Police would take them out if they didn't follow instructions or disarm. I can also..

Ive already stated that there is no threat to life so I dont know where you are going with this.

 

[sparky]

Christianity was given 10 commandements

None have ever been respected , every excuse has been made to violate them

Other religions basically operate the same , every last one of us would cross the line when convienient for us to do so, and blame someone or something else

Either individually, or as a group, a people, a nation ,this does not change.

Admitting it rises one to the reality of the human condition ,which when brought out in the light of day ,squirms and sqeals like a stuck pig

~S~

 

[Care4all]

T

Insurance covers car theft.it may be inconvenient for a little while but you get your money back. Your examples are not valid.

Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

I think you miss this......

Carrying a gun is not a break in the law.....since you can legally carry a gun in this country. Stealing a car is, in fact, breaking the law, it doesn't compare to carrying a gun.

You would make a better point if you said shooting someone for driving a car, not stealing a car.

Stealing a car shows that you are willing to endanger the lives of innocents, since you are willing to endanger the owner if they try to stop you, and if the police pursue you, you are likely going to drive recklessly to avoid capture.

When someone points a gun at someone, they have put that life at risk, so yes, you can take that life.

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

 

[night_son]

T
Abortion is like shooting a car thief their when there is no car.

Like killing a man standing in an empty parking lot.

It is attacking the most innocent , , , a life incapable of defending itself. That is the mother's duty.

Your lack of responsibility to family is stunning.

Dismissing my argument without debate, philosophy or array of reasoning proves you did not come here to debate but to preach.

Disappointing.

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

I think you miss this......

Carrying a gun is not a break in the law.....since you can legally carry a gun in this country. Stealing a car is, in fact, breaking the law, it doesn't compare to carrying a gun.

You would make a better point if you said shooting someone for driving a car, not stealing a car.

Stealing a car shows that you are willing to endanger the lives of innocents, since you are willing to endanger the owner if they try to stop you, and if the police pursue you, you are likely going to drive recklessly to avoid capture.

When someone points a gun at someone, they have put that life at risk, so yes, you can take that life.

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Likely they did but it depends. Was the suspect armed or did he appear to be under the influence of some kind of mind altering substance? Was the suspect fleeing toward more civilians specifically families or children? If the suspect was clearly unarmed and running away out of fear then shooting them in the back is excessive when pursuing them on foot and subduing them hand to hand is clearly the safer and more moral thing to do for everyone in the area.

I think that only Dirty Harry or Charlie Bronson would take the shot, and only on a movie set but you're not talking hypothetical anymore, are you? There's a thing about being a cop or soldier lots of people don't consider. When conflict occurs it comes out of nowhere just like a gust of wind. What that means is that leaves you with sometimes just a few seconds or breaths to decide what to do. Making the right decision in all scenarios for all bystanders and combatants involved is always impossible. After action reports and news articles are where REMFs, arm chair commandos/ethicists and finger pointers have time to assign blame and play with what ifs.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Based on other threads I have read on here.

People are quite comfortable in killing criminals who steal their cars.

How does that square with the sanctity of life ?

Is a lump of metal worth a life ?

The people pushing this extremism are vocally anti abortion.

I just dont get it.

Either life is sacred or it isnt.

When does the concern accorded to a mass of tissues expire ?

At birth ?

Either life is sacred or it is worth less than a lump of metal.

Can't ever remember a call for the death penalty for car theft...I think somebody saw you coming
...the anti abortion crowd is really just going after the enemies of America who know their only chance of inflicting death to America is to kill Americans in the womb...
...some enemies are so vile and disgusting they don't even view those Americans as human, just another unwanted American that can at any time be taken from the womb up to the head and then have the skull collapsed by sucking out the brain with a syringe [true story]...
...I do think our enemies are about to feel our wrath for such a callous approach to our most vulnerable...
...and I think we would be far more civil as a society if we stopped calling the arms and legs being ripped from the body as a mass of tissues.

 

[Care4all]

Yiour arguments are weak. Cars can be replaced, people cant be .

By definition of their very purpose--transporting people to a destination--cars can exceed the value of a human life for the value of other human life such as those described in my first response.

Now would I kill someone for stealing a car out of a dealer's lot? Well, let's take a look.

Dealer's car stolen from lot. Dealer loses money he could have used to take care of family. Or the person interested in that specific car now cannot purchase it. But it was the only car they could afford on the only lot in town. Now, without affordable transportation, they cannot get a job to feed themselves or their family. So killing that particular brand of car thief is also justifiable.

What about the car thief who gets away because you would not stop him who in a panic to avoid authorities by driving at high speeds crashes into another vehicle driven by a father with his family aboard? By not killing the car thief, you've instead killed an entire family. That's pure irresponsibility.

These are hypothetical. In essence you are saying that you have a crystal ball, can see the future actions and are then able to appoint yourself judge,jury and executioner.
If you extend your argument a little further you would be justified in killing anybody carrying a gun because guns kill and ,hey, they have a gun.
You cant kill people on the basis of what they might do.

I think you miss this......

Carrying a gun is not a break in the law.....since you can legally carry a gun in this country. Stealing a car is, in fact, breaking the law, it doesn't compare to carrying a gun.

You would make a better point if you said shooting someone for driving a car, not stealing a car.

Stealing a car shows that you are willing to endanger the lives of innocents, since you are willing to endanger the owner if they try to stop you, and if the police pursue you, you are likely going to drive recklessly to avoid capture.

When someone points a gun at someone, they have put that life at risk, so yes, you can take that life.

And when they are shot in the back, running, without a weapon, did the person who shot them in the back, commit murder?

Likely they did but it depends. Was the suspect armed or did he appear to be under the influence of some kind of mind altering substance? Was the suspect fleeing toward more civilians specifically families or children? If the suspect was clearly unarmed and running away out of fear then shooting them in the back is excessive when pursuing them on foot and subduing them hand to hand is clearly the safer and more moral thing to do for everyone in the area.

I think that only Dirty Harry or Charlie Bronson would take the shot, and only on a movie set but you're not talking hypothetical anymore, are you? There's a thing about being a cop or soldier lots of people don't consider. When conflict occurs it comes out of nowhere just like a gust of wind. What that means is that leaves you with sometimes just a few seconds or breaths to decide what to do. Making the right decision in all scenarios for all bystanders and combatants involved is always impossible. After action reports and news articles are where REMFs, arm chair commandos/ethicists and finger pointers have time to assign blame and play with what ifs.

I think the police, need better training on when to shoot and when not, so that people running, without being armed, should be chased or fought, hand to hand, and not shot in the back and killed.

Yes, as you stated, it is a high stress job...split decisions have to be made, constantly....but this just means, not all men that want to be or are... policemen, are cut out for the high stress job... imo.

 

[TNHarley]

You steal from me and your life doesnt mean shit. As i would expect the same in return.