Ends justifying the means

[Zombie_Babies]

The imminence of her daughter's danger was arguably pretty high, since she was getting ready to kill herself. And defense of another is one of the categories of actions that lets someone skate on a charge of using deadly force. In such a case, the defense of another need not be protecting someone from death, but merely from grave bodily harm...child rape would probably qualify.

The only reason the imminence was high was because of a decision she was going to make. In other words, she's the one that considered putting her daughter in danger when she thought about killing herself. That's created imminence and she created it. And then when she decided not to kill herself the imminence went away and yet she acted as though it hadn't.

I happen to know a thing or two about self-defense and defense of others and the threat still has to be imminent. If the dood was pants down and throwin' the kid on a bed shooting him would have been accepted as defending a family member. That was not the case.

Look, I ain't sayin' dood wasn't a monster and didn't have it coming. All I'm saying is that she murdered him in cold blood and she arguably didn't prevent anything bad from happening. All we have is a lot of 'could ofs' and 'maybes'. That ain't justification. Again, the only reason the threat was perceived as imminent was because she was thinking about offing herself. Had she not considered that - and it's very important to remember she reconsidered - there would have been no imminent threat. Something which I believe her thoughts on the matter prove nicely enough.

The bombing is the one with the unsure timeline.

It's not alone.

Still, as to your main point, she was convicted and given a suspended sentence. That means that, in the eyes of the court, they did not believe she was a threat to others- see battered wives syndrome theories- but that if she did prove to be a threat by failing to comply during the term set, she would have faced immediate imprisonment.

Yeah, she likely wasn't a threat to others. That's cool. She did murder someone in cold blood, though. And she didn't prevent any imminent crime when she did it. People get sent up for that all the time. It's punishment, not prevention.

 

[Janx]

She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment and she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had. She should have gone to prison.
__________

*And these crimes were not imminent. She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger only if she were to take her own life.

Well, to be clear, she went to trial. She was judged. She was given a punishment that the court/jury thought befit her crime and circumstance.

So while I might have considered "8 years probation" to be getting off, she and her lawyer had to earn/prove that. She was in trouble to be sure.

Now if the cops/DA hadn't file charges, that would have been getting off without any consequence.

As to whether her exact sentence was sufficiently harsh for killing an abuser, sex offender, terrorist? I don't think punishing her further would have had any value. Eight years probation is meant to be a test of proof that your not going to repeat offend. I'm pretty sure she's not likely going to need to kill her abusive, sex offending, terrorist husband again (as in getting a new husband, not re-killing the same one).

 

[Janx]

The only reason the imminence was high was because of a decision she was going to make. In other words, she's the one that considered putting her daughter in danger when she thought about killing herself. That's created imminence and she created it. And then when she decided not to kill herself the imminence went away and yet she acted as though it hadn't.
..snip..

Yeah, she likely wasn't a threat to others. That's cool. She did murder someone in cold blood, though. And she didn't prevent any imminent crime when she did it. People get sent up for that all the time. It's punishment, not prevention.

I'm not wholly sure of what cold blood means in legal terms. As danny did point out, she might plea to temporary insanity.

A battered woman who is putting a gun barrel in her mouth and having second thoughts, then walking in and plugging her bastard husband is probably got a lot of excited, fear, anger and crazy going on at that moment.

Cold blooded murder to me implies waking up, brushing your teeth, making breakfast, shooting your husband, taking the kids to school, making the beds, tending the garden. it tends to be calculated and with no remorse or concern about what just happened.

As it turns out in most cases, a sex offender's wife has little to do with preventing them from doing their deed. Especially under an abusive husband who will get his way or beat her. So the daughter was at the same risk of being molested whether the wife lived or not.

The only key variable is that the husband (to the wife's knowledge) hadn't done so yet, and the probability that he would eventually do so. By being into Kiddie Porn, he is already a sex offender and if convicted would have had to register. So the line was crossed for him about 50 websites ago.



Technically, she should have called that cops, as that should have resolved the situation. I don't think she employed the best means for the end, but given the context, I don't have a huge problem with her solution either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nor did the judge and jury of her peers. Or the FBI for that matter.

Perhaps they had just read up on Inuit near the Bering Strait. They have a term- "kunlangeta" which refers to someone who has comitted any of a great number of offenses- including murder and theft. Kuniangeta were supposedly tolerated until they could be shoved into the icy waters to drown.

Perhaps they felt he was kunlangeta...

 

[Bedrockgames]

She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment and she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had. She should have gone to prison.
__________

*And these crimes were not imminent. She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger only if she were to take her own life.

I am not so sure. The guy was amassing bomb material, child porn, talked about a growing desire or young women and it looked like he might molest their daughter (and it sound like he had been abusing the mother for some time)....I think going to police was the better option but I imagine many mothers would act as she did to protect their children from such a person and have a hard time condemning her to prison for that act.

 

[Umbran]

This is not what BG intended when he wrote the OP.

I'm establishing a point of logic. I had an end that was (I think) a good one. And a means that has something bad attached to it. No, it isn't as severe a case as Bullgrit was originally raising, but that's intentional - I'm eliminating a goodly amount of emotional baggage associated with severe cases, and looking at a minor case. This is to determine if we can find at least one case where a good end justified a means that had badness in it.

Once we establish that, we aren't looking at all-or-nothing. We are looking at a sliding scale - a given end will justify some means, but not others, and we get to quibble over the moral value of a given end or means.

What if someone doesn't believe the end justify the means in any case?

Well that's an extreme, and pretty hypothetical case, isn't it? Absolutes like "never" are unforgiving, to say the least. As a practical matter, such a person probably either needs to become amoral, not caring about any justification for anything, or accept that they'll live a life full of moral wrongs they commit and can never make up for.

Soem Tibetains set themselves on fire to protest the invasion of their country by China, to avoid hurting other people. It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.

That says that the end they desire does not justify killing other people. But the end they desire *does* justify killing themselves.

 

[Kramodlog]

OTOH, some would argue that suicide is itself an immoral act. So their self-immolation would fith the presumed criteria of using bad/immoral act to achieve a good end.

That is true. BG would need to clarify what he ment by "the end justify the means".

 

[Kramodlog]

Well that's an extreme, and pretty hypothetical case, isn't it? Absolutes like "never" are unforgiving, to say the least. As a practical matter, such a person probably either needs to become amoral, not caring about any justification for anything, or accept that they'll live a life full of moral wrongs they commit and can never make up for.

A life full of moral wrongs? A person can consider itself very moral by not doing moral wrongs, like not hitting/killing someone, even if that person is attacking her. Sort of turning the other cheek.

That says that the end they desire does not justify killing other people. But the end they desire *does* justify killing themselves.

Is it a terrible means like BG asked? It seems like it was something that hurt others people or the environment.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Well, to be clear, she went to trial. She was judged. She was given a punishment that the court/jury thought befit her crime and circumstance.

So while I might have considered "8 years probation" to be getting off, she and her lawyer had to earn/prove that. She was in trouble to be sure.

Now if the cops/DA hadn't file charges, that would have been getting off without any consequence.

As to whether her exact sentence was sufficiently harsh for killing an abuser, sex offender, terrorist? I don't think punishing her further would have had any value. Eight years probation is meant to be a test of proof that your not going to repeat offend. I'm pretty sure she's not likely going to need to kill her abusive, sex offending, terrorist husband again (as in getting a new husband, not re-killing the same one).

I didn't say she got off with no consequences, I'm saying she got off light. She should have gone to prison. Killing someone cuz you think they might do something bad isn't justification. If it was there'd be a hell of a lot more dead people around.

When person A kills person B for whatever reason they aren't given 8 years probation. Different circumstances are obviously important to consider. Her circumstances did not justify the sentence she received.

I'm not wholly sure of what cold blood means in legal terms. As danny did point out, she might plea to temporary insanity.

A battered woman who is putting a gun barrel in her mouth and having second thoughts, then walking in and plugging her bastard husband is probably got a lot of excited, fear, anger and crazy going on at that moment.

Cold blooded murder to me implies waking up, brushing your teeth, making breakfast, shooting your husband, taking the kids to school, making the beds, tending the garden. it tends to be calculated and with no remorse or concern about what just happened.

As it turns out in most cases, a sex offender's wife has little to do with preventing them from doing their deed. Especially under an abusive husband who will get his way or beat her. So the daughter was at the same risk of being molested whether the wife lived or not.

The only key variable is that the husband (to the wife's knowledge) hadn't done so yet, and the probability that he would eventually do so. By being into Kiddie Porn, he is already a sex offender and if convicted would have had to register. So the line was crossed for him about 50 websites ago.



Technically, she should have called that cops, as that should have resolved the situation. I don't think she employed the best means for the end, but given the context, I don't have a huge problem with her solution either.

First, I don't care that this bastard is dead either - just want to make that clear.

Second, ok, 'cold blood' is probably overkill (tee hee) as a descriptor here. That's fair.

Nth, she had many other options available. She chose, instead, to become judge jury and executioner when she had no immediate need to take his life. She could have called the cops or she could have walked out of the door. There were a lot more options than the last resort and yet that's where she decided to start solving her problem. There was no imminent threat to her or her daughter. None. She acted as though there was. She therefore acted improperly and should have been punished accordingly.

I am not so sure. The guy was amassing bomb material, child porn, talked about a growing desire or young women and it looked like he might molest their daughter (and it sound like he had been abusing the mother for some time)....I think going to police was the better option but I imagine many mothers would act as she did to protect their children from such a person and have a hard time condemning her to prison for that act.

Again, 'might' has never been sufficient cause. If it were I could try to get you angry enough to threaten me over the internet here, find you, shoot you and get off with probation because you 'might' actually hurt me. That's not a world any of us wants to live in.

And, again, it's not ok to go from zero to shoot him in the face when there are perfectly reasonable options in between. She chose to kill him even though she could have done a few other things before it got that far. Again, if he was in the process of harming her or her daughter or was just about to start her shooting him would have been fine. She shot him in his sleep. The only thing he was imminently threatening was the pillow he was about to drool on. It didn't shoot him, she did.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, 'might' has never been sufficient cause. If it were I could try to get you angry enough to threaten me over the internet here, find you, shoot you and get off with probation because you 'might' actually hurt me. That's not a world any of us wants to live in.

And, again, it's not ok to go from zero to shoot him in the face when there are perfectly reasonable options in between. She chose to kill him even though she could have done a few other things before it got that far. Again, if he was in the process of harming her or her daughter or was just about to start her shooting him would have been fine. She shot him in his sleep. The only thing he was imminently threatening was the pillow he was about to drool on. It didn't shoot him, she did.

I am not saying she met the legal definition of self defense. Clearly by the law, she didn't. But I think given that her husband was abusive. Given his increasing interest in child pornography and young women. Given the wife's belief that he was going to harm their daughter. And given the fact that he was amassing bomb making material.....I'd say this rises well above 'might' and into the territory of 'probably will'. I agree with you, those other options would have been much better choices. However she didn't have the luxury of making that decision from our vantage point of relative safety. She was in the same household as this man, abused by him, and presumably in great fear. I think from her point of view, going to the police was just as risky because if they didn't arrest him right away, if he was released from jail, or if he somehow convinced them she was crazy, then there would be nothing she could do to protect the daughter. So while I would prefer she went about it another way, I cannot support sending her to jail for this. She acted as a lot of other mothers would in that situation.