Kill Vrs. Murder

[Christopher Brandon]

[quote name='Christopher Brandon' date='19 September 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1253381813' post='1969207']
well, I'm sure those who read the violence thread already know my opinion of taking a life. I do not believe in execution. To me a sinner can not be helped by being sent to his maker. thats only taking away the time he could have used to live with his sin, come to regret it, and maybe beg forgivness.

More then this, it is not said we shall not murder, it is said we shall not kill. That includes anyone admistering lethal injection. Society will not condem you for this, but it is not society that you will be answerig to.

After all, it is said even in "10 Rules For Handling Disagreement Like A Christian" Rule number 6: "[b]To do evil in order to accomplish good is really to do evil"[/b]
[/quote]

I was reading what I said, and as of right now I stand by it. But as I was reading it, I had an intresting thought. was the commandment thou shall not kill? or thou shall not [i]murder[/i]? the justification of taking another life has been in debate in a few topics and I think this is what it realy comes down to.

Let me explain why i've been so ardent about not killing at all. two weeks ago I was held at gun point for the second time in my life, this man seemed to be okay, he was very nice, treated me and my freind with respect, and so we invited him to stay the night with us (because at this point he had been drinking and was in no condition to drive home) and I was sober (because I'm underage) and offered to drive him home but my freind insisted that he just stay the night. well, after he had gotten plenty smashed I realized a scary fact about this man, not only was he deeply disturbed by a break up of his 15 year relationship with a woman, but he was also schitzophrenic. He held a 20gauge semi-auto to my head and told me he had no choice, that "they" were making him do it, and that he's a good man and that it's not his fault, but I have to die.

of course I was scared, but long story short I talked him down. he sat on a couch and broke into tears. he asked me to kill him, and I was angry at him, he scared me more then anyone had in my life, the adrinaline in my system was so high my eyes shook. but I couldn't do it. I couldn't kill this man. It felt wrong, and as much as I thought about it later, I couldn't do it, and I think it's because I wasn't supposed to.

a freind of mine tells me I couldn't do it because after I got the gun from him he was no longer an imidiate threat, and that if we both had guns I would have had no problem killing him.

God helped David slay Goliath. with the help of God the walls of jericho fell down. but did David LITTERALY slay Goliath or was it a figuritive story? because we're told the Bible isn't to be taken litteraly. so heres the big question, Shall thou not kill? or Shall thou not murder?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Christopher Brandon' date='19 September 2009 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1253390853' post='1969293']
because we're told the Bible isn't to be taken litteraly.
[/quote]

Scripture is certainly to be interpreted literally, that is, according to the literal sense:

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 116)

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Christopher Brandon' date='19 September 2009 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1253390853' post='1969293']
I was reading what I said, and as of right now I stand by it. But as I was reading it, I had an intresting thought. was the commandment thou shall not kill? or thou shall not [i]murder[/i]? the justification of taking another life has been in debate in a few topics and I think this is what it realy comes down to. . . .

God helped David slay Goliath. with the help of God the walls of jericho fell down. but did David LITTERALY slay Goliath or was it a figuritive story? because we're told the Bible isn't to be taken litteraly. so heres the big question, Shall thou not kill? or Shall thou not murder?
[/quote]

David literally killed Goliath with a stone.

In the original text, the commandment read, "Thou shalt not murder." In other words, "Thou shalt not kill the innocent."

A lot of Catholics and Christians are in the world saying a lot of un-Catholic and un-Christlike things when it comes to executing murderers and rapists, and the like. "I hope he suffers horribly during the execution" is something I hear a bit too frequently. This is the problem that comes up when people see execution as a means of helping God punish people for infractions of his laws. When they try to say, "Vengeance is mine, not the Lord's." God can take care of enforcing his laws. That is his job. Men should stick to using violence only as a means of protecting human beings from physical harm.

You kill a rabid/dangerous dog because it poses a grave, immediate threat to human beings, not because it's a "bad dog," and you intend to punish it. This is the exact same, and [i]only[/i] reason that a human being may be justly killed. You may not kill him in an attempt to punish the spiritual evil of his act. No mere human, no matter how self-assured, could ever judge and inflict a proper punishment for a spiritual evil. It would be pure arrogance for him to try.

Killing someone may justly be done for one reason: to stop a serious physical threat to physical bodies and physical property. You may not morally use physical violence to defend your personal honor, the truths of the Catholic faith, or any other non-physical/immaterial thing.

It is not a moral evil to kill someone who poses a real, grave, and inescapable threat to your life or the lives of others.

I cannot disagree with your actions that night. You neutralized the immediate threat, and hopefully, the man is in a now in a place where he cannot readily harm other people. If, on the other hand, you had a serious reason to believe that this would not be the case, killing him would certainly be justified, just as it would be justified if, every day for a week, someone drove by your house and sprayed bullets into your room. You may justly shoot such a person after he was done firing and driving away, as you have very good reason to believe he will try to kill you again the next day.

Murder is always immoral. Killing is morally neutral. It may become immoral based on the circumstances.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 19, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Christopher Brandon]

That makes a lot of sense. but I'm going to have to pray on it for a few days before I say more. thank you

[Secuutus]

@christopherbrandon I think that if you had a gun, you still don't know what you would do. Police men carry guns and are always placed in those situations, and in a lot of cases they don't end up shooting them, they talk them out of it instead. It could have gone eaither ways. its like that saying goes "you don't know what your going to do until YOU experience it". In the Marines they tell us to shoot if anyone has a gun/rifle pointed towards us, but how do we know there going to fire? We don't. So whatever your choice is, you have to live with it and believe you made the right choice. It's going to be hard to live with, but God is all forgiven and understands the human nature of survival, and I believe that if you are truely sorry with all your heart, you will be forgiven. =)

[Christopher Brandon]

well of course you will be forgiven lol. but I don't think it would right for me to do something if I knew it was wrong and ask forgivness later like I can just wash my hands of it.

but I understand what your saying, wich is bassicly "follow your gut" right? wich is good advise but I'm still uneasy.

as for the police thing, I've actualy just yesturday been approved for sponsorship by my local P.D. for Bassic Law Enforcement Training at the local comunity college. I'm realy excited and I want to help because I've lived in this town all my life and it's not as safe as it used to be.

but your totaly right you know? I was put in that situation and I did what my gut told me to do wich was not to harm him, why shouldn't I think the holy spirit will intervine again? that was a flaw in my own faith. and now for every human being who ever reads this ever who has taken a life out of nessesity for survival or protection of others I am truely sorry.

[perfectunion33]

To kill or to murder someone for any other reason that to protect innocent life is intrinsically evil. But, I do believe that one should exercise every other possiblity to protect life without the use of any violence.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='19 September 2009 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1253399059' post='1969370']
David literally killed Goliath with a stone.

In the original text, the commandment read, "Thou shalt not murder." In other words, "Thou shalt not kill the innocent."

A lot of Catholics and Christians are in the world saying a lot of un-Catholic and un-Christlike things when it comes to executing murderers and rapists, and the like. "I hope he suffers horribly during the execution" is something I hear a bit too frequently. This is the problem that comes up when people see execution as a means of helping God punish people for infractions of his laws. When they try to say, "Vengeance is mine, not the Lord's." God can take care of enforcing his laws. That is his job. Men should stick to using violence only as a means of protecting human beings from physical harm.

You kill a rabid/dangerous dog because it poses a grave, immediate threat to human beings, not because it's a "bad dog," and you intend to punish it. This is the exact same, and [i]only[/i] reason that a human being may be justly killed. You may not kill him in an attempt to punish the spiritual evil of his act. No mere human, no matter how self-assured, could ever judge and inflict a proper punishment for a spiritual evil. It would be pure arrogance for him to try.

Killing someone may justly be done for one reason: to stop a serious physical threat to physical bodies and physical property. You may not morally use physical violence to defend your personal honor, the truths of the Catholic faith, or any other non-physical/immaterial thing.

It is not a moral evil to kill someone who poses a real, grave, and inescapable threat to your life or the lives of others.

I cannot disagree with your actions that night. You neutralized the immediate threat, and hopefully, the man is in a now in a place where he cannot readily harm other people. If, on the other hand, you had a serious reason to believe that this would not be the case, killing him would certainly be justified, just as it would be justified if, every day for a week, someone drove by your house and sprayed bullets into your room. You may justly shoot such a person after he was done firing and driving away, as you have very good reason to believe he will try to kill you again the next day.

[b]Murder is always immoral. Killing is morally neutral. It may become immoral based on the circumstances.[/b]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You're close, but not quite there, in terms of framing this from a Catholic perspective.

The death of one human being at the hands of another is always morally evil. However, we have the right to protect ourselves, and legitimate authority also has the responsibility to protect those in their care (ie. government, a parent for their children, etc). In the case of killing an aggressor, the goal is not to kill them, but to stop them from attacking. This is a critically important distinction. We should use all non-lethal means available to us to stop the aggressor, but if no other means are available at that moment, then we must still stop the aggressor.

Now, we enter into talking about the principal of double effect: that one may morally do a "proximal good", that results in a "distal evil". In the case of self defense, the "proximal good" is stopping the aggressor. However, in the case that no non-lethal means are available, the "distal evil" is the death of the aggressor. Here, the death of the aggressor is not intended, or at least, is unavoidable. What is intended, though, is simply to stop the aggressor from attacking.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Christopher Brandon' date='19 September 2009 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1253390853' post='1969293']
I was reading what I said, and as of right now I stand by it. But as I was reading it, I had an intresting thought. was the commandment thou shall not kill? or thou shall not [i]murder[/i]? the justification of taking another life has been in debate in a few topics and I think this is what it realy comes down to.

Let me explain why i've been so ardent about not killing at all. two weeks ago I was held at gun point for the second time in my life, this man seemed to be okay, he was very nice, treated me and my freind with respect, and so we invited him to stay the night with us (because at this point he had been drinking and was in no condition to drive home) and I was sober (because I'm underage) and offered to drive him home but my freind insisted that he just stay the night. well, after he had gotten plenty smashed I realized a scary fact about this man, not only was he deeply disturbed by a break up of his 15 year relationship with a woman, but he was also schitzophrenic. He held a 20gauge semi-auto to my head and told me he had no choice, that "they" were making him do it, and that he's a good man and that it's not his fault, but I have to die.

of course I was scared, but long story short I talked him down. he sat on a couch and broke into tears. he asked me to kill him, and I was angry at him, he scared me more then anyone had in my life, the adrinaline in my system was so high my eyes shook. but I couldn't do it. I couldn't kill this man. It felt wrong, and as much as I thought about it later, I couldn't do it, and I think it's because I wasn't supposed to.

a freind of mine tells me I couldn't do it because after I got the gun from him he was no longer an imidiate threat, and that if we both had guns I would have had no problem killing him.

God helped David slay Goliath. with the help of God the walls of jericho fell down. but did David LITTERALY slay Goliath or was it a figuritive story? because we're told the Bible isn't to be taken litteraly. so heres the big question, Shall thou not kill? or Shall thou not murder?
[/quote]

Dear Christopher,

Wow. I'm very sorry to hear about your story. I'm also sorry that I didn't respond earlier with more compassion -- I simply skimmed the topic, and didn't notice this post. If you feel that it would be helpful for you, I would highly suggest that you visit a professional in order to get your story off of your chest, and heal a little bit. Also, since this is not the first time it has happened to you, I would suggest some kind of self-defense classes, with special emphasis in weapons. Self-defense classes may also be useful in the healing process. Finally, don't invite strangers into your home.

Since you are asking about a sort of moral evaluation of your specific situation, I think that you did admirably well. You are right to say that he was no longer an "immediate threat" after he had sat down, and that it would no longer be morally justified to stop the man by killing him. However, had you a gun when you were held up, you would have been justified to take his life. Myself, I would have taken the gun when he offered it to me, and held him up with it until I could get police there to arrest him. Since he was schizophrenic, I don't think I would be able to know for certain that he wouldn't try anything, and would want to take steps to make sure that he didn't until police arrived to arrest him for assaulting you (threat of specific violent action is considered assault, even if they didn't do it).

The quote that you mentioned "to do evil in order to accomplish good is really to do evil" is backward for this situation. Please note the example in my above post, self-defense. In the case of killing for self-defense, the intent is not to kill the aggressor, but only to stop him from attacking. Stopping him from attacking is good, and is what you intend to happen. So, the quote for self defense would read something like this: "To do a good that unavoidably results in an evil is really good".

Blessings, and prayers for you, brother.

Kris

Edited September 20, 2009 by mommas_boy

[Winchester]

I have a story, too.

A few years ago, I walked into a room with several dead kids, shot by someone upset over his breakup. Kids. They didn't come back to life because he was upset.

Innocents suffer when people like that aren't taken down at first opportunity. Your mercy may well be a death sentence for his girlfriend or whoever else "upsets" him. You need to realize that, as well. Not that you are responsible or his actions, but your rosey little story means exactly croutons when that idiot goes off his nut the next time someone doesn't meet his expectations. The world is not a happy happy joy joy wonderama of love--it's cruel, it's hard and the innocent pay. The story isn't over. Doesn't make your action wrong, either. But recognize it for the roulette that it is.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Winchester' date='20 September 2009 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1253495108' post='1970030']
I have a story, too.

A few years ago, I walked into a room with several dead kids, shot by someone upset over his breakup. Kids. They didn't come back to life because he was upset.

Innocents suffer when people like that aren't taken down at first opportunity. Your mercy may well be a death sentence for his girlfriend or whoever else "upsets" him. You need to realize that, as well. Not that you are responsible or his actions, but your rosey little story means exactly croutons when that idiot goes off his nut the next time someone doesn't meet his expectations. The world is not a happy happy joy joy wonderama of love--it's cruel, it's hard and the innocent pay. The story isn't over. Doesn't make your action wrong, either. But recognize it for the roulette that it is.
[/quote]

In Christopher's specific instance, killing the aggressor would have been unjustified, because the aggressor had backed down. The proper action would have been to call the cops and have them arrest him, and press charges in order to put him in prison for several years to remove that as a possibility for the duration of his sentence, and hopefully get him into the system to be rehabilitated and counseled.

Again, the intended effect of lethal force in self defense is to stop the aggressor. The unintended secondary effect is that the aggressor is dead. Death should be avoided whenever possible, and in this case, it was possible to avoid the death of aggressor in the act of stopping him.

[Winchester]

Only after a point had he backed down. At one point, he was ready to kill, and it would have been justified to resist and use lethal force. It was luck.

[Winchester]

And "murder" is the more proper translation.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 September 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1253482089' post='1969891']
You're close, but not quite there, in terms of framing this from a Catholic perspective.

The death of one human being at the hands of another is always morally evil. However, we have the right to protect ourselves, and legitimate authority also has the responsibility to protect those in their care (ie. government, a parent for their children, etc). In the case of killing an aggressor, the goal is not to kill them, but to stop them from attacking. This is a critically important distinction. We should use all non-lethal means available to us to stop the aggressor, but if no other means are available at that moment, then we must still stop the aggressor.

Now, we enter into talking about the principal of double effect: that one may morally do a "proximal good", that results in a "distal evil". In the case of self defense, the "proximal good" is stopping the aggressor. However, in the case that no non-lethal means are available, the "distal evil" is the death of the aggressor. Here, the death of the aggressor is not intended, or at least, is unavoidable. What is intended, though, is simply to stop the aggressor from attacking.
[/quote]

The death of one human being at the hands of another is not always morally evil. It is always a physical evil. Otherwise, execution would not be moral. The Church has never stated that execution is always immoral. Execution is the intentional and deliberate killing of a human being.

The Catechism is worded strangely on this point: "[b]2263 [/b]The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." Note how it says, "the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing." Either it is saying that legitimate defense is not intentional killing, or it is saying that the murder of the innocent is what constitutes intentional killing. Which is it, in light of the fact that execution (protecting people by the means of intentional killing of the aggressor) is not always immoral?

-Sternhauser

Edited September 21, 2009 by Sternhauser

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='20 September 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1253497815' post='1970078']
The death of one human being at the hands of another is not always morally evil. It is always a physical evil.
[/quote]

Touche. Thank you for explaining the difference between a moral and physical evil. Guess that was just a problem of not using the proper vocab. That's what I get for not having any formal theology training!