When is it ok to kill people
When is it okay to kill people? Biblically, never, of course. But there’s plenty of situations in which it is reasonable to do something that isn’t okay. So when is it reasonable to kill people? There’s self-defense and/or the defense of others, but more often than not, those things aren’t okay either. You can, and will, go to jail for a very long time if you ever defend yourself. The only exception is if you can prove that you were physically incapable of running away like a little bitch, which is what you’re expected to do. You might also get lucky like Daniel Penny did (if you can call that lucky), but his case was as clear-cut justified as it gets and they still brought it to trial. Long story short, it’s really not okay to kill people. Or is it?
An estimated 2.8 Billion people have been murdered by abortion since the 1970s (Grok). More recently, a particular abortion case became very high-profile and, strangely, took over the news. Lindsay Clancy felt that her mental health was in jeopardy, which is a valid reason for abortion, both in my state of New York and in her state of Massachusetts. So, like any sane person would do, she exercised her legal right to the late-term abortion of her three children. This case was so unusual that even a lot of people who otherwise support the murder of 2.8 billion people, including the nigh-complete genocide against people with Down syndrome, took issue with this particular killing.
But when I say, “a lot of people,” I don’t mean a majority; half of the public either wanted a not-guilty verdict or “wasn’t sure” (YouGov, 7NEWS/UNH). Although there’s no way to prove it, I think it’s fair to assume that there’s a disproportionate overlap here with the half of the public that’s pro-choice. So, I assume that more than half of pro-choicers supported (or at least, refused to condemn) Lindsay. And why shouldn’t they?
If Callan, who was roughly the same age as my son, had only been a few months younger, any doctor would’ve allowed her to kill him. Post-partum depression is a perfectly valid reason; in fact, it’s overkill, and generalized anxiety would’ve sufficed. The only reason it went to trial is that she did it a little too late. 11 jurors agreed that she should not be convicted or spend time in jail for what was merely tardiness. Millions upon millions of women agree.
They might try to sugarcoat it by pretending that they want her to be institutionalized forever. But once she’s found not guilty at her next trial, or perhaps given a cozy plea deal, it’s only a matter of time before she’s discharged. She will have gotten the “help” she “needed.” As soon as the doctors confirm that she’s “healed,” women will openly support her freedom. She doesn’t deserve to be punished, because there’s nothing wrong with what she did. Millions of women, especially her supporters, have done the same. It’s healthcare. I mean, yes, the manner in which her children died was bad, because it made the public and her husband uncomfortable (not because murdering children is wrong), but that only happened because there was a delay in her healthcare.
It’s tragic, but those children had to die for her to feel better. Once she’s cured by whichever psychiatrist she’s seeing this time, it will have all been worth it. Actually, now that I think about it, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with killing people at all. You can kill people if they’re making you uncomfortable, or even just if they’re racist. A significant amount of black people (who could say how many?) believe that Karmelo Anthony should’ve been acquitted, in part because Austin Metcalf engaged in racist graffiti a few years before being stabbed to death, unbeknownst to his killer. Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he said that DEI initiatives undermine meritocracy, when in reality, uh, that’s somehow not obviously 100% true. Now, these are all just public opinion cases; killing people for alleged racism IS illegal, so maybe I shouldn’t compare it to killing children, even though large swaths of the population support it and ensure that the perpetrators are comfy in prison, and even though Anthony came somewhat close to being acquitted. At least there’s only a handful of examples compared to billions of murdered babies. Regardless, killing people is fine.
Maybe the question is less, “when is it okay to kill people?”, and more, “who is it okay to kill?”. So far we’ve established: babies, children in general, Republicans, people with dementia (as long as we lie that they’ve consented to MAID), and anyone who’s too disabled to advocate for their right to life. These are not merely people who you “could” get away with killing. It’s actually completely open season on them. Republicans are a little complicated, because you will go to jail for killing them, but half of the public will support you through prison and you will certainly be pardoned once the replacement is complete and all boomers die from old age. The same goes for Luigi Mangione, but I sympathize with what he did, so I’m not going to talk shit.
Most of the population exists in a grey area, where you could probably kill them depending on the circumstance, but that’s boring. Instead, let’s discuss the other extreme: people whom you are absolutely NOT allowed to kill. First and foremost are politicians. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire just lost their X account for supporting the assassination of Democratic officials. Mind you, they didn’t even tell anyone to do it, they just said they support it. Killing those people is wrong, and it wouldn’t qualify as “defense of others” because… um… uh… it just wouldn’t, okay!?
Trump is a weird case, so we need to discuss him. You’re allowed to openly support his assassination, and you would be celebrated if you were to carry it out. The only thing you’re not allowed to do is fail at it, as at least three people have done, because it makes you look stupid and is embarrassing. The strange part, however, is that a hilarious amount of his enemies (both elected and private citizens) came out and pretended to be disgusted by the idea that somebody would kill him. Most of these people simultaneously believe that he’s a child rapist, but I don’t know, I guess we follow the laws of Batman? Except for when it comes to babies. Given that all Democrats support murder in some way, I think I respect the ones who are honest about their desire to kill him more than the ones who aren’t. So is it ok to kill him? We won’t know until somebody does it, which will never happen because he’s protected by God. (The theme of powerful people performatively denouncing the murder of those whom they claim to be pedophiles, while most of the general public supports pedo-killing, will be revisited soon.)
Cops are another group you aren’t allowed to kill. For some reason, even (most) people who support police defundment will use killing a cop as more of a pejorative than killing a regular person. Elon Musk refused to play GTA V because it made you kill cops. Cops are people; as such, they are very diverse, and the vast majority of them don’t deserve to die. I’m not saying that killing cops is good. Let’s take the case of Benjamin Song. Did he deserve 100 years in prison for allegedly shooting a cop who was about to kill his friend? Well, no, it was a huge overreaction; but I’m glad he received it, because he and his friend were my enemies and they would’ve shot me too. The cop was also justified in aiming his gun at the guy’s friend.
But if Benjamin Song HAD shot me, do you think he’d receive 100 years in prison for that? What if he had postpartum depression and strangled three kids to death? It’s just ridiculous. If he had stabbed some random white kid for no reason, he would’ve received a measly 35 years and put up a serious fight for acquittal. Learn to pick your targets more carefully, Ben! It’s never been a better time to kill people, yet you somehow managed to get 100 years for ATTEMPTED murder!
Speaking of cops, you are absolutely, under no circumstances, allowed to kill George Floyd. Derek Chauvin got 23 years for merely appearing to have killed George Floyd, even though all of the evidence shows that Floyd overdosed in his custody, and that all Chauvin did was not make enough of an effort to save him. Bodycam footage shows that Floyd already couldn’t breathe before he was taken out of the police car. He was just as desperate and panicked before the restraint started, and he was hurting himself by thrashing around, which is why they restrained him. The Chauvin case was so absurd that it’s an anomaly to even our depraved Baalite culture, so let’s just move on. Sometimes accidental deaths are national tragedies which demand blood, and sometimes straight-up murder is ok. The general public is highly intelligent, and astrology is real.
Anyway, let’s circle back to Lindsay. Thanks to her, murder is totally normalized, and it’s a lot easier to point out our culture’s hypocrisy. We pretend to think that killing is the greatest sin when it’s convenient or affects us, but in actuality, we are completely indifferent to it. We only bother to create laws that restrict murder because we’re afraid of it, not because we necessarily believe that it’s wrong. This has always been the case, since long before Lindsay exposed it. The final group I wish to discuss is my favorite group of people in the world: pedophiles. Thanks to the release of the hit movie “Primetime,” in which Chris Hansen kills Bill Conradt, this is as good a time as any to examine the ethics of pedo-killing.
For starters, I’m not going to pretend that Hansen wasn’t responsible for Conradt’s death. Everyone knows that publicly exposing people carries the risk of them committing suicide. Chris Hansen certainly knew that, and he knew that he had a responsibility to be careful with how he used his show. He was, in fact, careful with it; he never killed any innocent people, and his only victim deserved to die. There’s nothing brave or controversial about saying that. It is the prevailing opinion (I think). And yet, To Catch A Predator was canceled over something that no regular person would particularly take issue with. To this day, if the movie is anything to go by, the media and Hollywood are hallucinating a moral outrage, when most of the public has firmly placed pedophiles in the “acceptable target” range with babies and old people. It’s as if these highly-educated media people are assuming that the public has a problem with vigilantism because our laws prosecute it. But I think it’s clear that, if it’s done in a way that isn’t illegal, nobody really cares.
It is totally bizarre that, in a country allegedly “governed by the people,” it is illegal to kill pedophiles. It isn’t even necessarily a lesser sentence. In theory, it should be prosecuted exactly the same as if you killed an innocent person. Recently, there was a situation in my life. A pedophile was abusing the court system to attempt to kidnap my child. I would’ve had no legal recourse if he had succeeded. If your child is raped or molested, you are not allowed to kill their rapist. A single look at the local sex offender registry shows that their abuser will most likely live out a normal life. People act like being a RSO is a death sentence, but there’s some Punjabi guy near me who has four fucking cars. What fucking job is he working as a registered child molester (and yes the charges were serious) that allows him to afford that? Some day I should go and ask.
In our secular society, the entire situation with life, death, murder, and so on, is weird. Before we get into whether it’s good or bad, it’s weird. It’s inconsistent. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t seem to be rooted in anything. Our laws protect people who would be hunted with impunity in any other civilization. People were not allowed to consent to death, whether by suicide or by mutual combat, until just recently, when only the least dignified form of suicide was legalized and only in certain places (thankfully). This is what happens when mortals attempt to develop morality without Christianity.
The Christian position is simple: all life is sacred, and we should always strive to abstain from violence, yet we acknowledge that there are situations where violence is necessary, and that is between man and God. From here we could develop a few different ideas about how the government should respond to killings. No matter your philosophy about the nature and purpose of government (whether you think it’s to keep people safe, uphold a broader cultural framework, or etc), there is obviously no point in the government interfering in personal situations that escalate to reasonable violence.
A man who kills his child’s rapist is not a danger to anyone else, and there’s no reason to deter others from taking the same action. I mean, revenge is bad, but it’s the way of the world. And the reason why it’s bad is that it hurts your own soul, there’s almost nothing wrong with the fact that it kills pedophiles. Killing an unrepentant chomo who attacked someone in your family is a victimless crime. But instead of acknowledging these sorts of nuances, we decided at a fairly recent point in human history that the district attorney is God and that it is never permissible to end anyone’s life at any point ever, or for any reason.
Well, that’s fine, except that it’s absurd. Now we are forced to manually create carve-outs so that society can continue to function. We are essentially working backwards from a totalitarian state of affairs to re-create a society where the law is only enforced within reason, which is the society we already had until like the 20th century. As I said, this overcorrection in which we bestowed prosecutors with the power of God Almighty is the result of the public’s irrational fear of violence; it has nothing to do with morality. Most people have no problem with Chris Hansen killing Bill Conradt the way he did, but if he had shot him with a gun, that would’ve been scary. The Klan used to be allowed to kill people for little-to-no reason, but now we’ve overcorrected to the point that you wouldn’t be allowed to kill the Klan unless they were immediately about to kill you in that exact moment.
A lot of carve-outs, such as self-defense, were already made explicit in the law, so our government reluctantly kept those. However, as I’ve said, DAs will stop at nothing to trample over clear self-defense if they think doing so is even remotely possible (Daniel Penny, Kyle Rittenhouse, enough said). Afterwards, we started adding more carve-outs, starting with abortion. Why? The legal justification is “a right to privacy,” which is obviously schizophrenic and should apply to all DV-type murders. The real reason, of course, is that women can vote and they love having abortions.
Next we have insanity pleas. This one doesn’t apply to normal people, but if you have a really expensive lawyer and live in a participating state, you can claim that you’re not criminally responsible for something you did. This is applied sparingly and really just boils down to “the public would feel bad for convicting you.” The idea that being insane makes you genuinely “not responsible” is so fucking absurd that I don’t even know how to address it, but it ties into the original sin of psychiatry (my least favorite institution on Earth), which is pretending that a person can be separated from their own mental diagnosis as if a different person exists underneath. I digress. (By the way, demonic possession is real, but you should still take responsibility if you’re possessed by a demon, for a few reasons.)
What is the throughline between all of these carve-outs? Logically, there simply isn’t one. Self-defense is for the health of society, but the entire concept of “mental incompetency” incentivizes unhealthy behaviors and is entirely emotional. Abortion allows you to kill people for convenience, yet this remains unpermitted in nearly every other circumstance, and there is no further advantage to abortion. It’s ok to kill people if you’re insane, but if you go a little crazy and kill an insane murderer, that’s not ok, unless they’re murdering someone in that exact moment, because you aren’t insane enough to kill people, but also, if you simply kill them before they’re born or when they’re really old then it becomes ok, because in that case it’d be burdensome to keep them alive, but keeping them alive forever in prison somehow isn’t burdensome. Huh? Thinking through all of this is making me go crazy, but thankfully, my son is in the other room!
Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, our investigation has failed. We can only reach one conclusion: the rules don’t make sense. The only thing that the rules have in common is that the mentally retarded general public thought that each rule sounded reasonable at whichever time that specific rule was pushed, with no regard for precedent, consistency, or basic ethics. The law is continuously evolving like an organism with some disgusting mutation. Many who are currently okay to kill will become unkillable, and many who are now safe will become okay to kill. The law is a compromise between a series of successful emotional appeals, fundamental rights that were enshrined in ancient times and yet to be repealed, and megalomaniacal DAs who are bored and will attack anyone who isn’t explicitly protected. Many will argue that compromise is a virtue, but actually, it sucks.
Now, I must answer the question myself: when is it okay to kill people? The system we had before was far superior to our current one, but there’s a middle ground between the worship of arbitrary laws and rampant vigilantism. “Random” or unprovoked murder should be punished severely, and should result in the death penalty unless the murderer repents and submits to a life of imprisonment and contrition. Obviously, this includes abortion, which is very much unprovoked; although I don’t think it would be fair to retroactively apply that to a time when all women were indoctrinated from birth to believe that fetuses have no souls. There’s a difference between a crime of ignorance and the r/plannedabortions fetish subreddit. If a murder is not unprovoked, i.e the murderer claims to have a good reason, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis. If it’s a case of mutual combat, regardless of circumstance, the government has no business responding to it at all (unless, obviously, there’s reason to suspect that it wasn’t honorable).
Let’s say a pedophile - someone in your family, just as a hypothetical - has an inappropriate obsession with your son, gets visibly excited when allowed to change his diapers, holds him in suspicious positions when he thinks no one’s looking, abuses the court system to attempt to isolate you and your wife from him, makes up lies about you to further that goal, and has a history of incestuous child molestation towards his own children which he was never held accountable for. He refuses to stop harassing your family despite repeated warnings that you want no involvement with him. What would happen if you killed that sad sack of shit? Like, just totally blew his head off. Obviously, there would need to be an investigation to establish all of those facts. That goes without saying. But what would, or could, you argue in court?
In our secular world, which we should take very seriously, you’re shit out of luck. There is no legal defense for your actions. I don’t even think you’d be allowed, in practice, to argue that he deserved it, and the jury wouldn’t be allowed to consider it if you did. The jury wouldn’t care that you tried and failed to resolve things peacefully. And that’s basically the entire problem. The purpose of a jury should be to decide if your actions were moral in the eyes of God, not if you followed a magic arbitrary human rulebook that changes all the time and can be misinterpreted anyway.
“He deserved it” should be a valid legal defense. That doesn’t mean you should say it and automatically get acquitted (although, there’s no reason to hold you in pre-trial detention if you aren’t a danger to anyone else); but it should work the same way as any other legal defense. Innocent until proven guilty is a good principle. Also, we should trust prosecutors to only bring cases where there’s actual cause to believe that something immoral (and not merely illegal) occurred.
What I’m proposing sounds insane, right? It’s anarchy! The court system isn’t equipped to handle moral nuance like that! Well, our current system is worse. That’s my only point. If angels were to govern men, no controls would be necessary, and so on. If we had a jury of angels, instead of a jury of our mentally disabled ESL sociopath peers, they would be able to consider moral nuances instead of relying on laws and “jury instructions” (what a concept). The jury system is ridiculous altogether. It obviously can’t function in a country that doesn’t have a common culture and in which the average person struggles to read and write, let alone when smart people are not compelled to participate in it. But I digress. This post isn’t about why the Constitution has failed us, it’s about when it’s okay to kill people.
We have to keep the jury system, and we can’t trust jurors to evaluate morality. Given these boring-ass constraints, I have just a few proposals. Criminalize abortion immediately, since there is absolutely no reason for it to be legal. Completely outlaw the insanity defense, or at least sign a law so that the people locked in cushy hospitals on account of it can never be discharged. Outlaw MAID. Greatly, greatly, expand the definition of self-defense to include any situation where you have reasonable cause to believe that someone intends to kill (or grievously injure) you (or a loved one) and that the police have failed to protect you. There would be a high standard for “reasonable cause,” but just high enough that it could be reached in the hypothetical I described earlier. Finally, legalize mutual combat.
These hotfixes would at least make us semi-consistent. Most of the loopholes where you can kill people for no reason would be gone. The purpose of the system would firmly be to protect society, which prosecuting people for consensually fighting or protecting themselves does not do. No more letting people off because we feel bad for them, and no more punishing crimes that are functionally victimless because we are scared of them.
But nothing that I’m saying will ever be implemented. I’m not even confident that solving these problems would improve anyone’s lives, since the usual suspects would abuse the new system and quickly overwhelm it as they have this current one. Compromises would have to be made, and we’d probably end up right back where we started, where the police and courts invent as much crime as possible without aggravating the groups that will cause social backlash.
I mean, even if Congress passed a “LET CHRIS HANSEN KILL THE PEOPLE HE CATCHES” act, it would be repealed, because the public only supports murder if it’s done via injection. Seriously, the public is obsessed with injections. Why are lethal injections considered more humane than hanging?* I could’ve written an entire post about our obsession with appearing clinical. It’s a tangent, but it proves that we are all insane. This post is not a call to change. It’s just me complaining about how much I hate our legal system. We have a very unfortunate populace right now, and our problems can only be solved in Christ. (As I am writing this, two lethal injections have been no-diffed by Christa Pike, causing her unimaginable agony and proving my point that the public is insane. She is currently being nursed back to health in a hospital… wait, what?)
So, when is it okay to kill people? Never. All life is sacred, and even when it’s necessary to kill someone, it is still a tragedy. You should avoid killing people at all costs. However, there are varying degrees of “not okay,” ranging from necessary evil to full-blown atrocity. We have laws that are supposed to determine when punishment is necessary, but the law is schizophrenic gibberish and it doesn’t matter at all. There is absolutely no correlation between legality and morality. Laws that are immoral, fundamentally and/or in enforcement, are the rule, not the exception. So if someone ever gets mad at you for daring to suggest that we alter the scope of legally-justified killings (expanding in some ways or reducing in others), remember that 2.8 billion people have been murdered through abortion since the 1970s, and somebody is currently in prison for “murdering” George Tiller. Do I support that murder? No, I wish he could’ve repented, but come on. How did the prosecutors not see the irony?