[Zyx]

Is killing out of self-defense a vigilante punishment for a thought crime?

Interpret a thought crime how you want.

As I intend this question however, I see killing the person with a gun to my head as the death penalty for a "thought-murder" rather than an actual "murder."

I would not know, discuss.

[jaakko]

What the hell?

[Vladimir]

I think I see what the question means (I could be wrong =/) but the options don't make any sense at all.
So to answer the question without voting - no, killing in self-defence is not a punishment for crime in conception, it is an act of prevention of potential lethal harm to oneself.

[Zimpo]

I don't understand the question... what is 'killing out'? I've read over the sentence a few times, and I just don't get what you're trying to ask.

Can you phrase the question differently?

[Vladimir]

Through some miracle I deciphered what he meant, and I think the question should be - "is killing someone in self-defence effectively a punishment for a thought crime?"...

At least I think so =/

[Zimpo]

That question makes more sense, but then I don't know if the poll options align with it...

The options for being attacked or threatened, shouldn't they be 'No, unless....' and not 'Yes, unless...'?

How do you know that someone is committing a 'thought crime' unless they threaten or attack? And if they are just thinking it, wouldn't the appropriate response be that you should be able to 'think about killing them in self defense'?

[ingliz]

NO - It is natural law. The right to defend oneself from unprovoked attack is recognised as a right in all human society.If that assault could be interpreted by a reasonable person as an attempt on your life of course you can kill the attacker.

[farbalo]

What the hell?

QFT

[Nets]

No, never.

Stupid poll.

[Todd D.]

I believe what he is asking is "If you kill someone out of self defense, is that 'vigilante justice' for a thought crime?"

The answer is no, because the person holding a gun to your head has not committed a "thought crime", they have comitted a very real crime, assault and threat of deadly force. It's entirely reasonable to defend yourself against someone who is making a legitimate threat to take your life.

[Goranhammer]

I stopped reading after "thought crime".

[Quercus Robur]

hm!?

silly

death is what happens when you defend yourself and their body caves in, rather than a fully formed intention to kill - that's the whole point of self defence.

is it true that jurisdictions in the US let you shoot murderers in the back as they're running away? Crazy US... this is what happens when you go all gunny.

[Truth-a-naut]

Go away Kumatto.

[Oxymoron]

is it true that jurisdictions in the US let you shoot murderers in the back as they're running away?

I certainly hope so.

[Brutus]

s it true that jurisdictions in the US let you shoot murderers in the back as they're running away? Crazy US... Smile this is what happens when you go all gunny.

Are you saying that's bad? Let's say he murdered an innocent? I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye until you come face to face with a victim or become one yourself. Then I think you'll open your view from "guns r bad, self defense r bad". Now illegal guns, they can r be bad. But this is very different from guns r bad.

[Zyx]

W0w, what an error . . . I was in a rush and sort of checked my grammar elsewhere . . .

The options for being attacked or threatened, shouldn't they be 'No, unless....' and not 'Yes, unless...'?

I "think" that it is right the way it is; as in, one would believe it was a thought crime unless the person were actually beaten to a pulp.

---

I did not know that some thought it alright to kill someone who threatened them though . . .

[jaakko]

What some might ignore is that when someone is being "beaten to a pulp" it's usually too late for him to succesfully execute a self-defence. And I have never heard of anyone killing a physical threat "for punishment". It's determined more by survival instinct than moral or legal considerations such as "punishment".

[W01f]

Yes. Thought crime is no longer thought crime when it leads to actions, even if those actions are only threats.

[keso]

I don't understand the question... what is 'killing out'? I've read over the sentence a few times, and I just don't get what you're trying to ask.

I think part of the confusion is that the question reads

Is killing out a self-defense a vigilante punishment for a thought crime?

Where, "a self defense" is interpreted as the direct object of the verb + particle combination of "killing out," however in the body of the message, it's spelled out more clearly.

Is killing out of self-defense a vigilante punishment for a thought crime?

In this part, since the author has seen fit to manifest a higher sense of literacy, spelling the word "of" in the way that it is supposed to be written, rather than in the question, "a" (which is the word 'of' pronounced and then written in slang)

Caution on the part of the author could have alleviated such a confusion.

[Quercus Robur]

Let's say he murdered an innocent?

innocents become guilty because they murder other people, regardless of their status.

Got that: innocent, guilty, murder <-- three unrelated things. We can't just kill guilty people... we'd lose whole swathes of the middle classes

If it is a matter of defending yourself / people around you then your actions are excused in that if it were not for their immediate actions, regardless of their guilt, you would have committed murder.