Psychology Of Criminals 1

Psychology Criminals 1 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 3rd Apr, 2008 - 6:21pm

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?
 

+  1 2 
Posts: 14 - Views: 1213
Based on "Most Evil" - Self-Defense
3rd Apr, 2008 - 12:04am / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1

Psychology Of Criminals 1

Those who kill in self-defense and do not show psychopathic tendencies.

This is considered the 'least' evil since the intention is not to seek death, but death comes as a result of defending self.

Notes about this Topic: There was a documentary called, "Most Evil" (Discovery Channel) with forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone who rates murderers on a scale of evil that he developed. This is one of many Threads with the same title I would like to Discuss.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 3rd Apr, 2008 - 2:34pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1
A Friend

Criminals Psychology

I believe that is you have to kill someone in self defense then you should not be considered a killer.

3rd Apr, 2008 - 4:50pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1 History & Civil Business Politics

Calling Self Defence evil is in itself Evil. When someone stops a would be attacker from harming yourself or others it is in fact righteous and should be considered an act of infinite goodness.

To preserve innocent life by killing the guilty is in a way wholesome and in my opinion is sanctioned by God and should be sanctioned by society.


International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 109 ActivistPoliticianPolitician 10.9%


3rd Apr, 2008 - 5:52pm / Post ID: #

Criminals Psychology

I believe he may be referring to someone who uses more force than necessary for self-defense. In other words, instead of simply making the person immobile they set out to kill because it is 'lawful' to do so. That is just my theory as to why it is on the list. I t could also be just a starting point to show the least to the greatest in killing, because regardless to self-defense or not the verb is to kill.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Post Date: 3rd Apr, 2008 - 6:01pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1
A Friend

Criminals Psychology

If a person is causing harm to me, a family member or some stranger and I fear that they can be seriously hurt or killed I will use deadly force to stop them. IF that means hitting them over the head with a brick 30 times then so be it. I believe that anyone defending another whether they used excessive force or not should not be tried because they killed another. They would not have killed that person if he/she was not already causing potential harm to someone already.

This does not mean you can kill a person who is coming out of a house with a tv set, or taking off with your computer.

3rd Apr, 2008 - 6:07pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1

That is the thing, 'harm' is often debatable. For instance if your in a line and your wife butts in the line in front of other people, and a security guard chooses to grab your wife by the arm and tell her that she cannot do that, and if you see that and choose to knock the guard into submission and then death is that justified?

Or how about this... a teen is stealing your garden hose and in the process you choose to stop him, but do so permanently, is that justified? Some say, he is on my property, and I do not know what he could have done (castle law).


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 100%


Make sure to SUBSCRIBE for FREE to JB's Youtube Channel!
3rd Apr, 2008 - 6:15pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Criminals 1

"To Kill" is not an evil concept in itself. There is a time to kill and a time to heal is an appropriate mantra in this instance.

The issue arises when they brought in the term Evil when discussing the different levels of Killing. There is no evil in legitimate actions to protect self and others.

They should have left this one out completely.


International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 109 ActivistPoliticianPolitician 10.9%


Post Date: 3rd Apr, 2008 - 6:21pm / Post ID: #

Psychology Of Criminals 1
A Friend

Psychology Criminals 1 Politics Business Civil & History

The two examples you have given is not something that a person could reason self defense on. A security officer is just doing his job and is not out to harm you or yin this case your wife. IF you beat him for doing his job others could jump on you and beat you to death and be protected under the self defense law since they were protecting the security officer.

The other case of a teen stealing something that is outside your house is not just cause to kill them. You can stop them and hold them until police show up but if you murder him you will be guilty of man slaughter even if the killing was accidental in the attempt to hold him under citizens arrest.

The castle law you are referring to is if a person is inside your residence. IF they are inside and you do not know what they are doing or capable of can justify, in some cases, killing the person. This law is being questioned a lot in the courts and so far has been upheld as far as I know

+  1 2 

 
> TOPIC: Psychology Of Criminals 1
 

▲ TOP


International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2024
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,