Would You Vote For a Killer for President?

Sure, if it was self deference, no problem what so ever. All life isn't sacred. If you get killed because you assaulted someone or were trying to rob them, ect, you deserve it.

 

Examples of folks who know nothing, yet follow the crowd. It's sad these sheep will change our nation soon. Not you, Dayton, but the member you quoted is the sheep.

 

pretzel logic

 

Interesting question, given what's in bold, I would say yes BUT, I would darn sure make myself very familiar with the circumstances of the cases ruled on. The escalation to deadly force is somewhat subjective when it comes to "fearing for one's life" or the ultimate safety of innocents. It's a judgement issue ultimately that has serious consequences so each case has to be scrutinized as separate. So, those "judgement" circumstance would be relevant to the OP title question.

 

Were you planning on breaking into someone's home?

 

Yes it is. Intent to cause bodily harm to a resident can be inferred. And no I'm not going to risk my life by getting close enough to an intruder to hit them with a broom if I have a weapon that works at a distance.

When someone breaks into an inhabited dwelling, they assume the risk of possible death or injury.

 

So what is God's definition of murder?

 

Deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

 

Look it up, lazy. sheesh, what am I, your wife?

 

Someone breaks into my house while I'm home, it certainly does justify shooting him. If it ends up being homicide, oh well. There's a rule in law that says anyone who is part of a criminal activity in which someone dies is equally guilty of murder, meaning someone who is the getaway driver in a bank robbery where a clerk is shot and killed can be charged with murder even if s/he never held a gun or pointed it at the bank clerk. The rationale is that you voluntarily took the risk of getting charged with murder when you agreed to be part of a bank heist. The same goes for breaking into someone's home, at least in Florida. You volunteered to take the risk of getting shot when you decided to break in. So the onus is on the criminal, not the homeowner.

 

So, you could not voice it, simply? What if I were an atheist who had never read any of the bible? And didn't have the time to read the entire book? And could not read it in the oldest languages we have on record? For as anyone will tell you familiar with translations, you cannot always get it accurate to the original language it was written in. And one must understand also the culture at the time the book was written. In order to get an accurate grasp of meaning.

You made a point that killing is the wrong word to use and yet that is what that one commandment of the 10 says. Well, murder can be defined differently depending upon time and culture.

There is this idea in christianity that since you did not give life, you are not worthy or in a rightful position to take it away. I remember that from Sunday School back when I was a mere lad.

Yet I believe in killing, but only in self defense, as every living thing has this drive present to survive and every life form will fight or flee in order to preserve the life in itself.

Of course the Jews would kill a person for certain acts, sin, and yet christ would have no part of it as evidenced in the story about the woman that the jews wanted to stone to death. It seems that Christ espoused the idea that if you are with sin, if you are not perfect, killing another person is wrong and should not be done. So this is more complex than you might think.

Personally I think the only justifiable killing is in self defense. And I think that because if God exists, He made that action almost an unconsious reaction, to protect ones life. Even roses do it with thorns, while some animals do it with horns, claws, teeth.

 

But we are all in sin, and who then is innocent? Christ was of course. Or so it says in a book.

But I know what you mean. And I agree.

 

Innocent human life is a human being who is "innocent" of any potentially deadly crime AT THAT TIME. You can't claim self defense if you kill someone who committed a murder last week or might commit one next week.

 

No disagreement from me.

It should also apply to us going to war. Or backing other people who wage war as in syria, in order to remove a ruler so that someone even worse can take his place.

 

Certainly, and it's not my responsibility to look it up for you.

 

I would have thought you would have easily told me, given you took the position of knowing. I guess you didn't really know, just assumed and could not state it, on this discussion forum?

ha ha ha

 

Or, it's up to you and not me. Fair enough?

 

The world is competitive. You want leaders with the killer instinct. Read Machiavelli. Of course I would vote for a killer who has the urge under control. Best leader you can get.

 

You still might have to do it. But you must be prepared to pay the price.

 

Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne in self defense.

 

False. For an act to qualify as murder, it must be a killing that is unlawful and/or unjustified. Meaning that it must be an act that is not provoked by violent or threatening actions on the part of the individual that is killed. If one is threatening another with the possibility of death, or great bodily harm, even if they are not using a weapon for communicating the threat, the use of deadly force in response is justified. Simply giving someone reason to believe that you intend to harm them is a justification for deadly force to be used in self defense.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

 

Taxachusetts loved their killer.