Jump to content
  • entries
    6
  • comments
    440
  • views
    7,179

Be Real: Question 1

Ejayrazz

377 views

Would you turn him in?  

88 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

This isn't meant ot be the easiest question, so you only have two options. No semantic arguing, just answer it.

Theoretically speaking, lets pretend a serial killer is on the loose. We found 130 of his victims under the ocean, butchered in body bags. Each one of his victims are killers and other severely heinous criminals. Most of these criminals were never convicted merely because of legal loop holes (ex: Finding sperm linking the killer to the victim, but improperly seized, thus the case dismissed).

Now, theoretically lets pretend this serial killer goes around killing these heinous killers and he is never wrong - meaning exactly just that, his victims are indeed definitive killers the law itself is unable to handle and he stresses the art of unreasonable doubt before choosing his victim.

He has never taken the life of an innocent nor will he ever, so in essence, he will never theoretically become a problem with the innocent. Imagine Dexter or Boondock Saints, in theory.

Lets pretend this is all 100%. You found this person and discovered his actions. Would you turn him in to the authorities or let him take out the garbage?



42 Comments


Recommended Comments



Bottom line, I would turn him in. No matter how skilled, he is a murderer. There is no societal benefit worthy of permitting such a heinous exemption to the standards of civilization.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The great thing about the law is that they look at what you did. You killed people, here in the Netherlands you can get arrested and can do some jail time if you hurt the person that is robbing you. While in the US you can kill trespassers.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The fact is that if we granted moral vigilance to every person who has some deemed self-righteous punishing mission, society would ultimately break down and the clear line between moral innocent and guilt would be blurred to a wash. So yes, I'd turn them in because despite the people he had killed, they were still deemed innocent until proven guilty, and I will attest that DNA does, indeed, lie in the form of "inconclusive"; as someone who works with DNA on an everyday basis, DNA is not cut and dry like they make it seem in CSI.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Whilst that paints a pretty picture of a vigilante hero of justice, what if then some of his victims have completely reformed, donating massive amounts of their income to charities, schools and hospitals etc? Not only that but the victims have friends and families too - some of which could be utterly dependent upon these people.

Also then where do we draw the line of a heinous crime worthy of being put on this guy's list?

EDIT: bottom line is whether or not someone has murdered someone in the past, if they are not going to do so again, and especially if they are actively trying to repay the commuinity, it is detrimental to kill them off (or even to gaol them to an extent).

Not that I'm suggesting every (or even many) violent criminal will turn into perfect citizens.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I should have added that these criminals will never reform. Sort of like the perfect storm coming together.

Though I agree with what has been stated, I am not sure what I would do. Imagine if your baby daughter was murdered right after turning the serial killer in and he looks at you and says, "It was Enrigue Shavez...He was next on my list. A known rapist and murdered the Johnson family."

No one is above the law I do agree, but the law has a lot of legality loop holes which makes the non-system extremely delicate.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I never agree with pretty much (including laws, although I obey them myself) unless I can see it serving a practical purpose. While he is breaking the literal interpretation of the law, he is not violating what I see to be the practical intent of homicide laws.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Although it's a silly question (there's no way to know if he's telling the truth about all those things he's supposedly doing to pick his victims), yes I would – you can't just take the law into your own hands and that's especially true for killing people.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The great thing about the law is that they look at what you did. You killed people, here in the Netherlands you can get arrested and can do some jail time if you hurt the person that is robbing you. While in the US you can kill trespassers.

That's actually completely inaccurate, but thanks for showing yet again that people who insult Americans or their culture as a whole are much more ignorant than the Americans they're accusing of ignorance.

If you shot a trespasser you would generally be sent to prison for murder. The most RADICAL anti-crime law in most states is the 'castle doctrine', that says that if you're in your home, and the intruder breaks in, AND you believe you're subject to great bodily harm or death, then the PROSECUTION must prove that you acted incorrectly. In fact, outside the home if you shoot someone trying to mug you, the burden of proof is, unlike all other cases, on you. That means you must prove that you acted in self defense, and the law assumes you acted as a murderer.

It's a lot more complicated than that and there are a lot more ways you can be arrested for 'self defense', including if you escalated it in any manner whatsoever (were the first to yell, etc.), if you were stronger than them or not, what your state of mind was, etc. You have a duty to retreat, as well. But when someone is bashing in your car door with a baseball bat (while you're in your car), even showing your gun is, in fact, illegal here.

But yeah, Americans are all cowboys shooting little kids who accidentally step on our lawns. Because we're allowed to under law. Right. :rolleyes: Don't spout off about things you clearly do not know.

Whilst that paints a pretty picture of a vigilante hero of justice, what if then some of his victims have completely reformed, donating massive amounts of their income to charities, schools and hospitals etc?

Nope. The people have not reformed. Things are not better. They are not innocent people at all. Don't try to look for an out of this moral dilemma because that's the entire point of the question... it's a moral dilemma. You can't change it to make one choice the hands-down prudent choice, you cheater :P

Share this comment


Link to comment
But when someone is bashing in your car door with a baseball bat (while you're in your car), even showing your gun is, in fact, illegal here.

You live in a lousy state. I can openly carry mine on my hip as long as I have my license.

Share this comment


Link to comment

You live in a lousy state. I can openly carry mine on my hip as long as I have my license.

You live in a lousy state. I'm 99% sure we can open carry without a license. :awesome: But you can't take an already concealed weapon and bring it out. It's seen as your provocation / escalation and means that guy can legally pull his gun if he had one and you couldn't legally react to him. The whole system is pretty messed up, but it's nearly impossible to fire a weapon in self defense unless you kept it hidden, never escalated, didn't start it, and were attacked with someone who either had much much much more strength than you or had a weapon out, and you couldn't run away or call for help. They will sit back and critique every move made in that situation as if you were sitting at home thinking of the best options, even though I doubt that's the case. Only if you made every single best possible choice every step of the way do you get off with no legal action against you, and in some circumstances you can still be sued by the "victim's" family.

The law is so strict that if I walked into a store and saw a man pull out a knife and run at a little old woman and I shot him, I would probably go to prison for murder if she had been the first one to begin yelling, or if she started the fight. Because, once again, you can't start or escalate it.

In fact, I bet we're more conservative than many other countries when it comes to self defense...

[No, I don't carry or have my permit, nor am I an attorney, I just know the law on it.]

Share this comment


Link to comment

The law is so strict that if I walked into a store and saw a man pull out a knife and run at a woman and I shot her, I would go to prison for murder if she had been the first one to begin yelling. Because, once again, you can't start or escalate it.

I don't think this is what you meant to type, but it puts a very, very humorous image in my head.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I don't think this is what you meant to type, but it puts a very, very humorous image in my head.

Haaaaahahahaha. ***** deserved it! :awesome:

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×