was killing police officers in apartheid South Africa justified?

[Ebowed]

I've always believed it is wrong to murder.

I agree.  Killing is never justified, even in the worst of circumstances.  I have a lot of sympathy for those who endured the brutality of South African offers during apartheid, but I don't believe in killing my enemies, no matter how much they deserve it.  That's why I'm against the death penalty, and that's likely why you're against it too, correct?

[Ebowed]

No, No, No, No, and No.

[Ebowed]

I've always believed it is wrong to murder.

I agree.  Killing is never justified,

No hold on!!!!!!!!!  That is not what I said.  I said MURDER is wrong, not killing.  And boom, rest of your post falls flat on its face.  Next time, please read my post.

Killing = murder.

Also, if you kill a police officer that is being brutal, you are giving him something he deserves, correct?  By your 'logic,' how is that murder, rather than killing?

[Ebowed]

No, if you're not educated enough to understand the difference between killing and murder (lets see, at least 4 languages I know has different words for the two and makes a clear distinction between the two), then we can stop arguing here.  I do not argue in such a manner with uneducated morons.

This is the style Richius always uses when he's having an argument (I think he learned it from AuH2O): beat the person over the head with irrelevant insults like "you're an uneducated moron."  Obviously murder and killing have somewhat different meanings, but the outcome is the same: a human being is dead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends.  Just remember you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

If you favor the death penalty for rapists, I don't see why you're against killing brutal police officers.

No, No, No, No, and No.

I assume this was a response to John Dibbles post above yours.
That means you would not kill to defend your own life or your family, or to prevent genocide. Given that we have murderers, mass murderers, and Hitler wannabes still alive in the world it seems like folks with your attitude would be eventually removed from the gene pool.

John posed a set of questions like "If a man threatens to kill your family, do you kill him?"  My answer remains the same: obviously no.  First of all, it's just a threat, so I don't give a sh**t.  Second, why kill him?  Why not call the police and let them take care of the job?  All he needs to do is stay in jail.  I see no reason to kill the asshole.  As for the fifth question, relating to genocide, there's no reason to kill the guy-- just stop him from committing genocide.  John's questions were narrow-minded enough to assume that killing was the only option, other than just sitting there and watching the guy commit genocide.  But you can always stop him.  Get a gun and shoot the guy in the foot, give him some nice wounds, put him in jail where he can recover, and the guy won't be commiting any genocide.

No, unfortunately it won't - people like us, people who have the resolve to do what's needed, allow him to keep on living a life where he's free to think such things.

You are an incredibly pompous person.

[Ebowed]

Name THREE countries that are prosperous growing countries with a healthy outlook on the future with a black leader.  Please do.

I agree.  Anytime a black person comes into power, the country is a failure.  Let's put the blacks in monkey cages where they belong.

[Ebowed]

No, if you're not educated enough to understand the difference between killing and murder (lets see, at least 4 languages I know has different words for the two and makes a clear distinction between the two), then we can stop arguing here.  I do not argue in such a manner with uneducated morons.

This is the style Richius always uses when he's having an argument (I think he learned it from AuH2O): beat the person over the head with irrelevant insults like "you're an uneducated moron."  Obviously murder and killing have somewhat different meanings, but the outcome is the same: a human being is dead.

YES.  But the key is the DIFFERENT MEANINGS.  At least you're not dumb enough to not recognize when you made a mistake.

I'm just saying that the outcome is more important than the circumstances, imo.  I realize this is different for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One was sentenced by a jury, the other was not.  However, I'm open to looking at circumstances in the latter.  Obviously if the brutal police officers were raping people, then you're justified in killing them.  (this is not murder)
[/quote]Well, all I'll say is that I'd never trust the infallibility of a jury...

[Ebowed]

I would definitely kill someone that is in the process of raping a little 3 year old girl.  Would you?  (assuming there is no option of simply disabling him: the option is to let the rape continue by walking away, ignoring it, or to shoot the bastard, what is your choice?)

I'd shoot him, but not in the heart or face -- perhaps a foot or leg.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but it does give legitamacy.  Otherwise you wouldn't believe in prisons either, eh?
[/quote]True that it does give legitimacy, but it's not always infallible, and besides-- it's reversed in this question, you want a jury to decide whether the police were brutal, not whether or not they jury did a good job in deciding.  I should have said that a jury isn't always necessary to say when a cause is just.

[Ebowed]

The OBVIOUS implication was that he would actually do it - as in gun pointing at you/them/whatever, being in the position to do it immediately, and doing so if you failed to act - sorry Ebowed, but don't be moronic. The context of the question should be quite clear.

It's never that simple-- you also implied by asking "Would you kill him?" that I'd have a weapon to be able to kill him, i.e. a gun.  I'd rather shoot him than kill him, and said so.

If the above doesn't change your mind, because the police won't be there in time to save you or your family. Killing him is the only way to ensure he won't be doing killing.

Anyone actually in a position to commit genocide would likely be in a position of great power - wouldn't be quite so simple to stop him without killing him.

Shoot the guy in the foot? He can still kill you for shooting him. Give him some wounds? No guarantee that'll incapacitate him enough to stop his actions.

You're right, shooting him in the hands would work better.