/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

That's not a conundrum, thats just murder

>>12398

A preemptive strike against a murder?

As Power comes from God and thus authorities should be obeyed when possible, the policeman should try his best to arrest the suspect if there is an order to do so and he does not think said order is unfair. But I think shooting the suspect only would be acceptable if he takes another person as hostage or tries to attack the cop in order to kill him and flee.

There is actually enough to convict him for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the fact he admitted that he will just get off and hurt more people will make his chance for parole is pretty much zero and will have to serve prison sentence.

Really dumb scenario OP

>>12397

That's murder.

>>12400

There is no such thing. It is just murder.

>>12403

The cop can't use his words in court unless he made that statement under Miranda and in the presence of his lawyer during a legal interrogation.

Only God can punish crimes that haven't happened yet. We aren't omniscient. Preemptive justice is not justice.

>>12442

Only God could be argued as morally right in punishing sin that hasn't happened but he is never Biblically depicted as doing so.

Follow the rabbit hole on this topic and you arrive at the hard to swallow redpill of open theism.

There is ample evidence to convict the suspect of both resisting arrest and threatening an officer; neither entail capital punishment, nor does hurting a person or threatening to hurt more. The cop, on the other hand, had agreed to let the suspect go quietly, so he both killed the unarmed suspect and broke his oath.

Thus the cop is clearly in the wrong. Why would a Christian take on this scenario differ from any other?

>>12439

>The cop can't use his words in court unless he made that statement under Miranda and in the presence of his lawyer during a legal interrogation.

Miranda is irrelevant here. The suspect was armed and was not under arrest, and the cop was not interrogating the suspect.

>>12397

The only thing dumber than OP's phrasing are the replies itt.

Let's distill what he really means: someone knows with basic certainty that a serial murderer will escape justice and almost definitely kill again if this person doesn't take this chance to kill them now. Is he justified, even though this would technically be illegal?

I'm gonna say yes, he's clearly justified. The laws of the nations of men exist to protect the good, not only would obeying them in this instance unambiguously accomplish the opposite, but would contradict the law of Christian charity, which supersedes it. (And yes, killing a would be murderer before he can further condemn himself is charity both to him and his would-be victims)

To dispute this is like saying you wouldn't shoot someone attacking your family if you couldn't prove in court you were justified, or worse, that you wouldn't if the law were disgustingly pacifistic and ONLY police could legally engage in violence in any circumstance (this is the pathetic trajectory the western world is on, so don't think this is so implausible). That's just cowardice.

And to all the "you can't know for sure" fags

1) The scenario is that you know he's guilty and planning further violence with maximal certainty. If you want to be totally intransigent about the supposed "unknowable" nature of human behaviour (which is nonsense), then everything else in the world is just as unknowable, better stay in bed all day, your whole life might just be an illusion.

2) He surrendered the benefit of the doubt in committing his previous murders, and execution is a perfectly proportional and just punishment for (mass) murder even if he WEREN'T going to kill again, so the risk is basically non-existent.

>>12541

>Killing a man who is not engaged in violence because you feel certain he will murder in the future

This wasn't part of the scenario but I say absolutely not. You are not omniscient to have the necessary certainty to enact capital punishment. Murder and attempted murder are crimes in levitical law, general attitude predisposed toward murder or even statement of intent to murder are not. Punishments follow crimes.

>Perform an execution for a witnessed murder when you have certainty the courts will fail

Permissible maybe, not an obligation.

I agree that the state isn't given some mystical monopoly force on violence, even though Romans 13 describes a system where the responsibility to execute is given to the state and there isn't a Christian objection.

The need execute murderers as given in the noahic covenant is a blanket rule.

>He surrendered the benefit of the doubt in committing his previous murders

False confessions are common and should still be investigated because of the gravity of the punishment