Debate: killing bad guys, really bad for you?

[Arthur Dent]

Something that really bothers me in TV shows and movies is when the "hero" of the story either refuses to kill the bad guy or talks someone else out of killing the bad guy. Especially in situations where it is actually life threateningly dangerous to do so, because it's "wrong" to kill.

For example, hero disarms nasty bad guy who just killed a few dozen people, vowed to kill hero and hero's family, and is a genius at getting away again and again to kill more people. Hero doesn't kill the bad guy. Bad guy gets up and is about to kill hero when bad guy get struck by lightning, falls off cliff, gets eaten by wild animals, or some other miraculous death that saves the good guy from killing.

In my opinion this is all liberal hollywood bullshit and the "hero" is completely justified in killing the bad guy. Just Hollywood idealism (isn't that an oxymoron?) saying all killing is bad no matter how justified, lovie-dovie crap.

What do you think?

[Hey Ladi]

shoot him uicide: you can do it!

[Corpsegrinder13]

I think that society is so pussy whipped and nicey nice, that they edit the things we use for enjoyment. I mean, last year when the WTC happened, the Arnold movie Collateral Damage was postponed because of the nature of the movie. If that happend even 20 or 30 years ago that movie would have been out and about for people to enjoy or to rip. Either way we should have our own choices as to what we want to see. That choice shouldn't be left up to the assholes in hollywood...

[diceisgod]

They don't make'em like Harry Callahan anymore.

[SYNTuesday]

Met a guy on the LIRR last Saturday... he was sitting next to me, got into an arguement with the conductor. After their argument concluded, with him showing quite a short fuse, he sat back down, and said to me "Did you see that? He called me a liar! Motherfucker... lucky I didn't punch his teeth out. Lucky for him I turned a new leaf... just got out of jail for double murder"... I look at him with a smile... he says "You're looking at my like I'm joking..."

Long story short: He's buying milk on his way home at a convenience store, druggies all over that corner, police precinct 5 blocks down, they don't do anything about it. He comes out, counting his change, guy A grabs it. This guy, Tommy, grabs the cash back and drops his milk. Pissed, he pushed guy A who in stumbling back falls through the store window. Tommy gets in his car and guy B, guy A's cousin, is coming at the car with a pistol drawn. Tommy pulls out a 9mm from under the seat and shoots him.

As he's driving away, guy C throws a rock through the rear windsheild. Tommy gets out, walks to the gas station at the other corner, empties the self-service windex bucket, fills it with gas pours it over guys A and B and lights them on fire, then proceeding to drive away. Gets 12 years... This is two weeks after graduating NYU, double major in Psych. and Econ.

Maybe I got a little off topic... :hrug:: Up to what point was he justified, as far as this killing the bad guy thing goes?

[OAS]

The best true to reality scene in a movie was when Indiana Jones pulled out a gun and shot the sword yielding dude that was trying to impress him. That was reality, kind of like "I got your swords pal, bye mutha fucker".

[Hey Ladi]

Up to what point was he justified, as far as this killing the bad guy thing goes?

stealing change & throwing rocks at windows, does not a super-movie-villian make

punishment should fit the crime. that guy had a screw or 37 loose.

[Arthur Dent]

Alright Syn,

Mistake #1: Never count your change while walking anywhere. Count it at the counter quickly, then put it away. Flashing cash is trouble. Period.

Now, pushing the guy through a window? That's a pretty hard shove! Alright, it was probably 20 years ago, so it was plate glass which shatters pretty easily.

Shooting the guy coming at him with a drawn gun? Justified. It's self-defense.

Coming back with a can of gasoline and lighting up the guy in the window and the guy he shot is cold-blooded murder.

Self defense laws say you are justified only in doing what is necessary to protect yourself or others from harm. If the guys on the floor in excrutiating pain or unconcious, he's no longer a threat and you have a legal obligation to contact the police and have him arrested, not kill him.

Unless of course, your in the middle of the woods and you know the guys going to get up in 5 minutes and start hunting you down like an animal before you get anywhere near help.

But anyway, that's real life.

[Kid Afrika]

You people make me laugh. If someone breaks into your house, unarmed, and you shoot them... You stand a chance of being sent to jail, or paying out the ass in civil court.

You see, self defense laws are cloudy at best. It is often not considered self defense if you use greater force than the person from whom you are defending yourself. In other words, if you have a gun, and the person assaulting you does not, you should think twice before shooting. It might just come back to bite you in the ass. Ever hear of Bernie Geotz(sp?)?

[Galt]

Please cite these laws of which you speak, Kid. Because your interpretation of them are clearly not factual

Bernie Goetz was different because he was in public, not his own house. And even HE didn't get found guilty. He had some bullshit civil suit that he lost that will never be paid.

[Hey Ladi]

someone breaks into your house, unarmed, and you shoot them...

I thought this was about movies...

Ever hear of Bernie Geotz

from that song, right :burnfucker:

[Kid Afrika]

I didn't say that I was reciting any statutes or laws, only that the law is not as clear cut as one might think. Why don't you show me the law that says that you can shoot someone in your house and it's self-defense?

OK, I did your homework for you...

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

And yes, ladi, I am guilty of not reading the entire thread.



Edited By Kid Afrika on Aug. 01 2002 at 6:25

[Sloatsburgh]

I think the guy was justified because he eliminated 2 undesirables from society.

[Hey Ladi]

I think the guy was justified because he eliminated 2 undesirables from society.

if you pull the trigger that'll be one more uicide:

[Galt]

Hey K1d, when will you realize that every time you respond to me, I win.

[Kid Afrika]

Well now of course you do, galt. You always wi.. Oh WAIT!! VG always wins! Not galt.

[Hey Ladi]

you're both losers :rofl:

[Arthur Dent]

Well, this started with movies, but like any thread, it goes where it wants to.

When I was studying martial arts in college, our instructors told us all kinds of horror stories about people with training defending themselves against muggers, etc. and getting arrested or sued for use of force. Seems lawyers and juries think anyone with martial arts training should be able to fight like Bruce Lee and disarm a guy with a knife without leaving a bruise and dodge bullets.

NYC is one of those places where you have a legal obligation to run away if you can safely do so.

------------
Back to the original debate: Does it piss anyone else off when the hero doesn't kill the bad guy and then the bad guy gets killed by some miraculous outside force like falling off a cliff?

[Hey Ladi]

Yes.

It also bothers me when the bad guy threatens the innocent victim & they cry or get all scared, stand up & take it like a man!