It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


When is Killing Another Person not a Crime?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:03 AM
I was sitting on a long 9 hour train journey yesterday and spent a great deal of time thinking about the world and the way things are today. One thing that came to mind was the amount of wars there have been in my 46 years on this earth and all the death, killings and murders in war.

Now I am not a religious person, but who is to blame for all the murders and killings etc, during conflict? According to the bible, I think that the sixth commandment states that, 'Thou shall not kill.'

If you are from what is known as a christian country, then who gives any military personnel the right to kill another human being? If a certain country has a belief in the teachings of the bible, then who gives the go ahead?

If politicians and the like give you the go ahead to go into war and kill another person or indeed persons, who gives them the right to do so? Do these people in high standing have a special line between themselves and God that issues them with authorisation?

Like I said earlier, I am not a religious person, but if God does exist and we all do have to give an account of our lives after we have left this earth, then who is accountable for any killings you may have committed in conflict?

If military personnel who go to war are actually what you call, a born again christian, then how does that go hand in hand with what they believe and what they have to do as part of their occupation?

I suppose it's a similar situation to countries that still have the death sentence. Just because somebody may have committed a terrible crime and they are brought to justice, how can somebody give the right to somebody else to put that person to death when the supposed practice of a certain country is a christian one?

I just wondered what peoples thoughts were on this subject........

edit on 19-9-2011 by davethebear because: spelling error

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:12 AM

If politicians and the like give you the go ahead to go into war and kill another person or indeed persons, who gives them the right to do so?

Politics is synonymous with bull shiza. Politics is the appearance of, not the truth of. For rational thinking people, what you have deduced is a common theme among all. For emotional people, it is veiled, as their emotions cloud their judgement.

And of course, don't forget the people that understand all this but would never admit it. That there is politics.

Picture a snake eating itself.
edit on 19-9-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:15 AM
Thou shalt not kill.

It's the first and golden rule of every society with 'good' at it's core.

even without the religious connotations, i don't feel i have the right to take anyone, or anything's (even a spider's!!) life for that matter.

or rather, if i do, i've put myself in the shop window for karma to do the same back to me.

In fact it's funny you should mention it, as it was a conversation I had with Mrs Beaver last night.

Did you see the show Torchwood? (Doctor Who with some shockingly unnecessary sex scenes thrown in).

Part of the plot was about a guy who'd killed a girl but survived the death penalty.

EVERY char in the plot treated this guy as if it was their responsibility to punish him, ie. threatening to kill him all the time etc.

to me it's a similar point. In my mind, sure a murderous child molester deserves his punishment - but if I were to kill him, i too would have committed a golden sin and would be just as worthy of suitable punishment.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Beavers because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:19 AM
reply to post by davethebear

my view - pacifism only works if EVERYONE embraces it , saldy there are always people who develope the ethos that " violence works "

at this juncture a quote is apropriate:

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

now unless you can PEACEFULLY persuade everyone to renounce violence

then you need to ether get your own hands dirty , or accept the reality of the " rough men " who will act as your proxy

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:24 AM
reply to post by davethebear

The original commandment said...Thou shalt not murder.

The difference is in the intent. Malicious forethought vs. defending yourself.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by davethebear

Well you're assuming that people brought up in a "christian" country automatically subscribe to religious dogma,when this is far from the case.
To kill during conflict may be justified by the kill or be killed scenario,but is it fair to attach blame on the soldier on the ground,is not the superior officer/government employee just as guilty for ordering the killing?

Personally I believe thatt here is justification to kill in a situation where either your family or yourself are in extreme danger from another human being intent on causing severe injury /death.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:47 AM
reply to post by davethebear

thats a hard one. I would typically say, when someone is trying to kill you, or someone you love. But it could include, someone trying to persistantly kill another less defensive person. But it really needs to be looked at by a jury, cause one person cannot say it is justified. Hard one.... In terms of war.. Well.... I would hope the people invaded hd done something horrible for others to come and destroy them. And same as jury, one country to me, would be equal to one person. So more than one country would have to vouch for it.. But thats all bs.. And they do whatevr they want cause the odds those giving orders get caught or die as a result are almost zero.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:58 AM
Only when somebody is threatening your life, like after they kicked your arse or killed somebody you love, kind of eye for an eye. That is the only time when you kill them.

Realistic perspective is only in cases of self defence.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:02 AM
As said, in self defence to stay alive, and....

assisted suicide or euthanasia.

I despise those people who force terminally ill people, who have all their witts, and who have made that final decision to die with dignity, to be kept alive under god.

I know if and when I choose to exit this world, if it doesnt sneak up on me then I will most likely be mindful of those around me and be able to say goodbye and exit peacefully...

not having them wipe my bum every day and feed me like a baby, in an undignified and pathetic fade to black.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:18 AM

Originally posted by davethebear
One thing that came to mind was the amount of wars there have been in my 46 years on this earth and all the death, killings and murders in war.

I am only half your age, but this has been on my mind also. It is quite overwhelming to think that since the year I was born military operations have been almost nonstop. I wish everyone could give this idea some real thought, it would blow their minds (I think it would anyway.)
What I find even scarier is that all the little babies I know may never know a day without war and the death, killings and murder that go with it. Even though those babies do not realize it yet, they have not yet known a day of peace.
When I am 46 years old and looking back, I hope things would have changed by then. But I am doubtful it will.
236 years and not much has changed in that respect. Has it?

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by davethebear

you're confusing "crime" with "sin". one is based on man's law. one is based on God's law. there is the difference.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by davethebear

I believe in an eye for an eye. However, that does no include death.

I believe if someone murders another person on purpose, they deserve to have their life irreversibly changed, for example life in prison. - However it can't be that simple.

But when it comes to the 'right' to murder, i believe if you kill someone in self defense (again its not that simple), you have the right to defend yourself to best of your ability, and if you need to kill that person to survive, it is your birth right to defend your body against harm.

No crime deserves the death penalty - NONE

For those people that have tortured, murdered, raped, manipulated etc, the real scum of humanity, they do not deserve death, that's too good for them.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:41 AM
Since the OP is using “Christian” values as a gage in this discussion, this will be the focus of this response.

First, one must re-examine the teaching and of Jesus of Nazareth concerning the act of killing another Human being to discern if we have the moral permission to take another’s life.

The answer here is blatantly obvious, we do NOT have the moral permission as followers of Jesus to take another’s life for any reason whatsoever.

Our example is Jesus and his disciples, who ALL laid down their own lives, even when they were innocent and being attacked, in order not to commit the act of taking a Human life.

Each of these men would have been found justified in the defense of their own life to commit the act of taking another’s life, but they did not.

So, Christian teaching and example of the founders is that we as followers should lay our own life down before we commit the act of taking another’s life. No exemptions.

Just imagine how different life in the World would be today if all of the followers of the Christian faith would have obeyed the teaching of the Master.

This teaching is just one of the teachings that followers of Jesus divert their path from the teaching of Moses. Moses’ teaching is that you are able to defend yourself and your house with deadly force and the Tribe may employ deadly force, when it is called for by the leaders.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:23 AM
Depends on the state that you live in. In Texas if somebody trips on a sidewalk curb and lands on your front lawn you can blow them away. In California or New York it's hard as heck to prove justifiable homicide as long as you had an option to run away.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by davethebear

You can't be religious without being a hypocrite. Religious dogma is about absolutes, when really, things are always shades of gray.

The Buddhist believes in not harming living things, yet we cannot exist without consuming the dead (whether dead plants or animals).

Christians believe one shouldn't kill, yet engage in wars for God.

Muslim extremists believe the same, and yet will blow up innocents and believe they will go to Heaven.

All anyone can do is live what THEY believe to be a good life, being a good person, based on their OWN ideas of right and wrong.

Whether it's God, Buddha, Allah, etc., or none of the above...all we can do is hope that we've lived as best we could. If there is an afterlife, and some kind of "test" for some reward, then well, so be it...but I'm not going to live in fear based on a possibility.

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:06 AM
There are many variables to consider.

If the scenario presented was more specific as in here, it would be an easier question to answer, though I think it's in our nature to consider variables as a means to justifying our action. Which is something else we seem compelled to do.

Interesting question though

top topics


log in