this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
17 points (87.0% liked)
Asklemmy
50890 readers
600 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The death penalty is wrong because life is precious and even the worst people can change if given enough time and help.
However, if it is strictly necessary to kill someone currently engaging in murder to stop them (i.e. the capitalist class), i.e. the situation is so time-sensitive that innocent people are going to die if the murderer isn't stopped, then I'm 1000% cool with killing the murderers until they stop murdering or are dead, whichever happens first.
Oh yeah I draw a heavy distinction between those two things. In fact, according to my moral compass, not killing someone actively engaging in murder would be immoral. Like if one person is stabbing an innocent person, green light 1000%. But thats just my morals.
Are you sure? Like I wouldn't condemn you for stabbing a murderer frankly, but let's say you can tackle or distract or knock out the murderer, or just do something that isn't stabbing them but still stops them without hurting you, then only if it is feasible to do so, then surely that's a better outcome? Again, I would 1000% not fault you for acting quickly in a real situation and stabbing a murderer, but since we are in the proverbial armchair we can afford to be a little bit more subtle here.
IMO I think "could be" is more accurate than "would be".
Yes that would be a better outcome but, absolutely a much bigger risk. Im a particularly big/strong guy. I've spent a couple years training 2 martial arts disciplines lately. I also grew up a middle school, high school and college wrestler. I still don't see a way I could be 100% sure I wouldn't be fataly injured by getting involved, unless I had a gun. Ideally nobody dies but its such a crazy huge risk to attack someone with a weapon.
Yeah I feel you. Personally I have almost 0 martial arts training, almost 0 self-defense experience, and an utterly ambivalent will to live. So if I'm at the point where I'm willing to get physical at all, then I've already flown off the handle and my personal safety is just not a factor in the calculation anymore.
Yeah it would depend on the situation. I'd like to think I'd get involved regardless. But, I've never been and hopefully will never be in the situation. Interesting hypothetical though. Definitely not something I run through my head all the time on my commute haha.