Would you/could you murder someone?

[Hibbyradge]

I was reading something about Katie Hopkins and I fleetingly thought that I'd like to shoot her. Understandable, I'm sure (most of) you agree.

In the early 80's, it was quite common for young dafties like me to get together in pubs and talk in sombre tones about sending someone to London to kill Margaret Thatcher. :hilarious

Of course, even if I had a gun, which I don't, I wouldn't really do something like that. The occasional homicidal fantasy about people I dislike intensely seems to be enough of a release valve for any anger I feel and I imagine most people have a similar outlook.

Then I got thinking that although my upbringing and moral compass make it impossible for me to premeditatedly kill anyone, that obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

So, without implicating yourself in anything, :greengrin and excluding military service and possible episodes of sudden rage, are there any circumstances under which you would/could plan and kill another human being?

[BroxburnHibee]

There's been a few occasions on the golf course I've thought about shooting myself :tee hee:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I was reading something about Katie Hopkins and I fleetingly thought that I'd like to shoot her. Understandable, I'm sure (most of) you agree.

In the early 80's, it was quite common for young dafties like me to get together in pubs and talk in sombre tones about sending someone to London to kill Margaret Thatcher. :hilarious

Of course, even if I had a gun, which I don't, I wouldn't really do something like that. The occasional homicidal fantasy about people I dislike intensely seems to be enough of a release valve for any anger I feel and I imagine most people have a similar outlook.

So, without implicating yourself in anything, :greengrin and excluding military service and possible episodes of sudden rage, are there any circumstances under which you would/could plan and kill another human being?

You're just touting for ideas! :-)

[danhibees1875]

I think I could do it if someone else was putting either mine or a loved ones life in danger.

Otherwise no, although like you Ms Hopkins would be first in line if that changes :wink:

[Speedy]

Hard to say. If there were no consequences it would be a lot more likely in that I wouldn't necessarily see any moral difference between killing someone at war or killing someone because they present a danger in civilian life.

[hibsbollah]

At 11:08 this morning I would have said no. One parking ticket later I'm like Michael Douglas in Falling Down.

[lord bunberry]

There's certain circumstances in which I would. If I was driving along and so a terrorist shooting people, I would have no problem running him over and killing him, and as someone else said if my family were in danger then I would like to think I would.
I couldn't do anything like that through hatred towards them, in fact anything that was premeditated wouldn't be an option for me.

[snooky]

Like most people if it was a "them or me" situation, I just might but who knows?
However, there have been a few individuals (some well known, some not) of whom I've thought this - if somebody was to "take them out' then the world would be a better place.

[Tobias Funke]

At 11:08 this morning I would have said no. One parking ticket later I'm like Michael Douglas in Falling Down.

:tee hee:

(For clarity the laugh is at the Falling Down reference, not the ticket!)

[Hibrandenburg]

It all depends on the target. I'd have no qualms about killing someone who was willing to use violence against me or mine and possibly others. If you're willing to live by the sword then you must risk dying by it. For various reasons I've become desensitized when it comes to death.

[Colr]

There's been a few occasions on the golf course I've thought about shooting myself :tee hee:

On those kind of days, you'd probably miss!

[Pretty Boy]

If someone seriously harmed a member of my family I think I could entertain the idea.

[snooky]

There's been a few occasions on the golf course I've thought about shooting myself :tee hee:


On those kind of days, you'd probably miss!

Hitler didn't miss with his bunker shot though.

[Hibbyradge]

At 11:08 this morning I would have said no. One parking ticket later I'm like Michael Douglas in Falling Down.

:faf:

[lyonhibs]

If they'd brought harm to my family then, as mentioned by a previous poster, it give it a decent shot (no pun intended).

In a "kill or be killed" sitaution then perhaps.

But fundamentally no, never. I hope that never gets tested.

[Scouse Hibee]

I can't really ever imagine my moral compass allowing me to do such a thing. Quite possible I suppose in a fit of rage if a loved one or friend had been injured or killed by another. I would much rather make someone suffer indefinitely as a reminder of what they had done.

[Nameless]

Could I kill someone? - Yes, given very specific circumstances.

Would I kill someone? - Probably not, I'm too rational a person.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[Sir David Gray]

If I witnessed someone seriously harming or even killing a relative I think I probably would be capable of murder.

It's one of those things though that you never know how you'll react unless you're in that situation.

[Just Jimmy]

Probably could do it. Living with having done it would be different I imagine.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Could I kill someone? - Yes, given very specific circumstances.

Would I kill someone? - Probably not, I'm too rational a person.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Interesting discussion, and also an interesting turn of phrase you use.

What has always struck me about real life killers who aren't off the dial mental (mostly reading gangster books etc) is just how rational they are - they dont hate their victims, they just make incredibly cold and rational decisions.

Anyway, as other habe said, right (or wrong) circumstances, i think i could. But as someone else said, i hope i never have to.

The point someone earliet made about consequences is also an interesting point!

[Nameless]

What has always struck me about real life killers who aren't off the dial mental (mostly reading gangster books etc) is just how rational they are - they dont hate their victims, they just make incredibly cold and rational decisions.

I think "cold" and "rational" are diametrically opposed. I know what you are saying, but I think they are more detached than rational. I think to take a human life requires passion, delusion, hate or self-preservation, none of which marry with a rational person.


Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

I think "cold" and "rational" are diametrically opposed. I know what you are saying, but I think they are more detached than rational. I think to take a human life requires passion, delusion, hate or self-preservation, none of which marry with a rational person.


Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

It can be either or. Murder for personal gain can even be both.

[Nameless]

It can be either or. Murder for personal gain can even be both.Surely murder for personal gain is delusion. You convince yourself that it is the quickest, or most simple route to your end goal. If not that, then it is a psychotic response to a situation, which in itself lacks rational thought.

Do you think a rational person ever chooses such an extreme response?

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[calumhibee1]

I couldn't kill someone premeditated. I couldn't even fight someone if it was premeditated. However, as someone else said, if you say got caught up in a terrorist attack and for whatever reason the opportunity arose to kill the attacker, I don't think I'd have any problem with it. Likewise, in a kill or be kill situation, I think I'd be able to. But it's impossible to say really.

[High-On-Hibs]

It's easy to hide behind a keyboard and say that you would do it if the circumstances presented themselves. But in all probability, you would ***** bricks and not do a thing, as would I.

[lapsedhibee]

Surely murder for personal gain is delusion. You convince yourself that it is the quickest, or most simple route to your end goal. If not that, then it is a psychotic response to a situation, which in itself lacks rational thought.

Do you think a rational person ever chooses such an extreme response?


If a poor younger person marries a rich older person with the sole intention of becoming rich when the older person dies, shirley murdering the older person would be the "quickest, most simple route to the end goal?" Highly rational and the exact opposite of delusional, non?

[AnthonyJR]

I could,I believe it's not hard for someone to kill a life :wink:
I wouldn't kill someone,'cause we don't have the right to take it away from someone.:cb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cheap soccer jerseys (https://www.jerseysoccercheap.com/)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Surely murder for personal gain is delusion. You convince yourself that it is the quickest, or most simple route to your end goal. If not that, then it is a psychotic response to a situation, which in itself lacks rational thought.

Do you think a rational person ever chooses such an extreme response?

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

I disagree a bit - i think context dependant ( a huge caveat admittedly) it can be the rational thing to do, in a 'rational self interest kind' of way

[steakbake]

I could,I believe it's not hard for someone to kill a life :wink:
I wouldn't kill someone,'cause we don't have the right to take it away from someone.:cb

http://www.cheapsoccerjersey.org/linkimages/cheap-football-shirts.jpg

An interesting first post!

[Hibrandenburg]

I disagree a bit - i think context dependant ( a huge caveat admittedly) it can be the rational thing to do, in a 'rational self interest kind' of way

Rationality is also dependant on people's personal moral compass.

[Future17]

An interesting first post!

:greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Rationality is also dependant on people's personal moral compass.

Not a dig at you, ive noticed a few mentions in this thread, but when the **** did 'moral compass' become normal languahe to use?? What happened to just morals?

Yeah of course, hence my context caveat.

[Nameless]

Rationality is also dependant on people's personal moral compass.That's a fair point.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[Nameless]

I disagree a bit - i think context dependant ( a huge caveat admittedly) it can be the rational thing to do, in a 'rational self interest kind' of wayI think I'm justifying it by Western "standards", so your right. To a desert tribesman, killing someone who is trying to steal your camel would be rational, so in that context killing someone could be a rational decision.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Not a dig at you, ive noticed a few mentions in this thread, but when the **** did 'moral compass' become normal languahe to use?? What happened to just morals?

Yeah of course, hence my context caveat.

Moral compass is better descriptive of the many different morals and moral standards witnessed amongst humans. We share many but race, religion, upbringing and origins all play a role in what direction someone's compass points. There's no one set of morals that are correct.

Some people eat goats, some **** goats and others covet their neighbour's goat, all perfectly acceptable in some circles.

[--------]

I firmly believe that given the 'right' (i.e. the 'wrong') circumstances, everyone has at least one killing in him or her.

All we need is the incentive and a way of justifying it to ourselves. It helps if we have accomplices, too. Then it's not 'just us' taking the law into our own hands - we have social reinforcement. Rage helps, too. Rage makes it easier to justify at the actual moment.

And I would say that in most cases, once we've 'broken our duck', so to speak, the second time would be a lot easier.

[Hibrandenburg]

I firmly believe that given the 'right' (i.e. the 'wrong') circumstances, everyone has at least one killing in him or her.

All we need is the incentive and a way of justifying it to ourselves. It helps if we have accomplices, too. Then it's not 'just us' taking the law into our own hands - we have social reinforcement. Rage helps, too. Rage makes it easier to justify at the actual moment.

And I would say that in most cases, once we've 'broken our duck', so to speak, the second time would be a lot easier.

:agree: People can be conditioned to kill and by that I don't just mean intentionally like a soldier but also by their environment.

[--------]

:agree: People can be conditioned to kill and by that I don't just mean intentionally like a soldier but also by their environment.


The Stanford Experiment of August 1971 proved quite decisively that ordinary people could very easily be induced to abuse, torment and torture others who up till a short time previously had been unknown to them.

I believe only one person, a woman, objected to what was going on; everyone else was drawn into increasingly enthusiastic co-operation. Christopher Browning's book "Ordinary Men" showed how very easily ordinary military policemen were persuaded to engage fully in all the activities of the Final Solution, right up to outright brutality and mass murder.

But we don't require peer-pressure or military discipline to kill. Castaway sailors have regularly resorted to killing and eating shipmates when drifting lost at sea in a lifeboat. It was called "the custom of the sea" and it was only brought to court in the UK in the latter years of the 19th century - and although the accused (three men who had eaten their cabin boy) were found guilty and condemned to death, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment before they were quietly released (maybe with a warning not to do it again?).

I don't think one needs to be deprived, or badly brought up, or abused in childhood, to kill. Look at the case of Loeb and Leopold in 1924 - Clarence Darrow's finest hour, you might say.

Push me far enough, or place me in a position where I feel threatened and angry and where I have no reasonable recourse to sorting things out legally or peaceably, and I would be more than capable of killing. Threaten one of my loved ones, threaten me, stand between me and something I really need and desire (even if only in my own twisted mind) and I could very easily kill. I perhaps should say 'would' very easily kill.

And if I got away with it once, I suspect I could very easily acquire the taste for blood ...

[cammy1969]

An ex girlfriend told me years ago that she was molested as a child, and it went hru my mind a lot of her pain scared she must have been. It played on my mind a lot at the time I believe I could have killed him no problem whether I could have went thru with it I don't know but I truly believe i could have carried on without remorse for him


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[--------]

An ex girlfriend told me years ago that she was molested as a child, and it went hru my mind a lot of her pain scared she must have been. It played on my mind a lot at the time I believe I could have killed him no problem whether I could have went thru with it I don't know but I truly believe i could have carried on without remorse for him


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yup. Totally identify with this. I might have given you an alibi ...

[Betty Boop]

The Stanford Experiment of August 1971 proved quite decisively that ordinary people could very easily be induced to abuse, torment and torture others who up till a short time previously had been unknown to them.

I believe only one person, a woman, objected to what was going on; everyone else was drawn into increasingly enthusiastic co-operation. Christopher Browning's book "Ordinary Men" showed how very easily ordinary military policemen were persuaded to engage fully in all the activities of the Final Solution, right up to outright brutality and mass murder.

But we don't require peer-pressure or military discipline to kill. Castaway sailors have regularly resorted to killing and eating shipmates when drifting lost at sea in a lifeboat. It was called "the custom of the sea" and it was only brought to court in the UK in the latter years of the 19th century - and although the accused (three men who had eaten their cabin boy) were found guilty and condemned to death, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment before they were quietly released (maybe with a warning not to do it again?).

I don't think one needs to be deprived, or badly brought up, or abused in childhood, to kill. Look at the case of Loeb and Leopold in 1924 - Clarence Darrow's finest hour, you might say.

Push me far enough, or place me in a position where I feel threatened and angry and where I have no reasonable recourse to sorting things out legally or peaceably, and I would be more than capable of killing. Threaten one of my loved ones, threaten me, stand between me and something I really need and desire (even if only in my own twisted mind) and I could very easily kill. I perhaps should say 'would' very easily kill.

And if I got away with it once, I suspect I could very easily acquire the taste for blood ...

Are you not a man of the Church now then ?

[WeeRussell]

Put one of those evil b******, (e.g. one whose sole purpose in life is now to kill as many innocent members of the public as possible, or a monster capable of things I don't want to type) in front of me, and assure me I'll not get in any bother.

Then yes, absolutely.

[Pete]

Could I murder someone?

I suppose it depends how horny I get.

[--------]

Are you not a man of the Church now then ?


I'm a man, and capable of anything a man is capable of. Including murder.

I haven't killed anyone - yet. But I've been angry enough at times to do so.