Your Government/Serial Killers

†_Beast_† · Mar 12, 2015

I was watching a film the other day that I hadn’t seen in a few years called suspect zero and it got me thinking again about a hot topic from which I’ve noticed that people tend to debate over for elongated periods. People do seem to have quite a large array of thoughts when deliberating over this topic. The collective consciousness of thoughts over this, that society gives, seems to teeter back and forth dependent on what the popular concurring theme becomes; often times being biased to personal experiences or what the boundaries of said country is experiencing at that given time.

– I.E. – Say Kosovo has a serial killer on the loose and the government has been unable to stop this individual and he/she continues to kill at will. Say a private citizen of Kosovo, takes matters into his own hands, tracks down and then kills any serial killer every time a new one is “born” when committing a spree of unchecked acts.

1. Would it be simply not personal to “you” because it’s not happening where your living, say another country as per this example?
2. Would it become more personal to you if it were in the confines of your own country?
3. When the government cannot provide the means or fails in its responsibility to protect any tax paying citizens/their families etc. and stop said individual, do you think it is up to others to step in and destroy the threat?
4. A being by definition becomes a serial killer even if he/she targets and kills only serial killers because it’s still considered multiple murders/deaths. Should he/she also be responsible for murder and justice in the eyes of man and its court systems?
5. Eye for eye, blood for blood – simply means that it must be paid back in full. The blood which cries out must be justly given back when taken life. To balance and destroy nefarious acts; is it your government’s right to then hold a person for answering the blood/or should it always be within the right of “the people”?

*What country do you live in and what are your thoughts as a private citizen of that country?

I'm curious as to what different sects of people think in today's society dependent on their own commonwealths, better yet to say - your states/nations "common goods" I suppose. I would be happy to read through any responses and thoughts.

†_Beast_† · Mar 30, 2015

I'm surprised that nobody on this site has any opinions/thoughts on this subject

Grimes · Apr 11, 2015

Alrighty, let's see.
Question 1, Would it be simply not personal to “you” because it’s not happening where your living, say another country as per this example? I'd have to say I'd have only a slight opinion about this. If it's not happening near me I can't really say I'd be aware of it enough to ponder it, but at the same time my opinion on this is large enough to explain for a few seconds here. I think, in a way, it should always matter to everybody when things like this are happening around the world. ISIS, for example, isn't happening in America but I sure am concerned about it and feel strongly about my opposition to it. Whether it's here or not, I don't like ISIS. Same goes for this example, just on a smaller scale. Because this killer isn't able to operate on a more mass basis, I don't think it's too much of a concern to me, but that's probably only because it's not being blown up by the media. Serial killers work in secret mostly, so it's not something that comes to mind unless I'm reading about it like right here. I will say that, overall, it would bother me personally if this killer was running around said country, just because I empathize easily with others and I'd want anyone to be safe from someone like that. If this person was in America and I knew they couldn't catch them, even knowing their identity, whereabouts, or whatever else, then I'd be a lot more uncomfortable about it.
So, question 2, would it become more personal to you if it were in the confines of your own country? I may have already answered this question in my first response, but my answer is yes. It'd probably bother me more if it was occurring in my area of the globe - HOWEVER, that's not to say that it'd be on my mind constantly. I'd want them in custody in this situation more than I'd care if they were in custody in another country, though.
3. When the government cannot provide the means or fails in its responsibility to protect any tax paying citizens/their families etc. and stop said individual, do you think it is up to others to step in and destroy the threat? I think, if our leaders can't handle it, the country's citizens are always obligated to help.
4. A being by definition becomes a serial killer even if he/she targets and kills only serial killers because it’s still considered multiple murders/deaths. Should he/she also be responsible for murder and justice in the eyes of man and its court systems? I think so, actually. I'm all about following the law, haha. If a citizen sees this person and is able to identify them correctly, why not just call someone (like the police) who's qualified to deal with it instead of illegally and dangerously trying to handle it yourself? Police are on stand-by for this sort of thing. I don't necessarily think that if someone impulsely acts upon it because they're worried about their loved ones and want to eliminate a violent person who's a cold stone killer that they should be charged with similar murder, but I think a small sentence should teach them to involve the law. The intent wasn't initially to break the law, and the nature of the killing would be for the benefit of the whole community/country rather than for some sort of sick, sadistic reason, but it's still illegal to kill. My opinion is that no one should step in for the law unless it's asked of us.
5. Eye for eye, blood for blood – simply means that it must be paid back in full. The blood which cries out must be justly given back when taken life. To balance and destroy nefarious acts; is it your government’s right to then hold a person for answering the blood/or should it always be within the right of “the people”? I'm not sure if I understand this question, but I believe the government should have the upper-hand in most cases. At least in this sort of situation. They know more about criminals than the average person does. The people are not the government, but the government is part of the people. We can't view the government as robots, they have feelings about this stuff too. I'd leave it in their hands though, because unlike the average person, they're more aware of serial killer cases and such and are likely to choose what's best rather than just going off of their feelings like a helpless citizen would.

†_Beast_† · Apr 12, 2015

Grimes said:

Alrighty, let's see.
Question 1, Would it be simply not personal to “you” because it’s not happening where your living, say another country as per this example? I'd have to say I'd have only a slight opinion about this. If it's not happening near me I can't really say I'd be aware of it enough to ponder it, but at the same time my opinion on this is large enough to explain for a few seconds here. I think, in a way, it should always matter to everybody when things like this are happening around the world. ISIS, for example, isn't happening in America but I sure am concerned about it and feel strongly about my opposition to it. Whether it's here or not, I don't like ISIS. Same goes for this example, just on a smaller scale. Because this killer isn't able to operate on a more mass basis, I don't think it's too much of a concern to me, but that's probably only because it's not being blown up by the media. Serial killers work in secret mostly, so it's not something that comes to mind unless I'm reading about it like right here. I will say that, overall, it would bother me personally if this killer was running around said country, just because I empathize easily with others and I'd want anyone to be safe from someone like that. If this person was in America and I knew they couldn't catch them, even knowing their identity, whereabouts, or whatever else, then I'd be a lot more uncomfortable about it.
So, question 2, would it become more personal to you if it were in the confines of your own country? I may have already answered this question in my first response, but my answer is yes. It'd probably bother me more if it was occurring in my area of the globe - HOWEVER, that's not to say that it'd be on my mind constantly. I'd want them in custody in this situation more than I'd care if they were in custody in another country, though.
3. When the government cannot provide the means or fails in its responsibility to protect any tax paying citizens/their families etc. and stop said individual, do you think it is up to others to step in and destroy the threat? I think, if our leaders can't handle it, the country's citizens are always obligated to help.
4. A being by definition becomes a serial killer even if he/she targets and kills only serial killers because it’s still considered multiple murders/deaths. Should he/she also be responsible for murder and justice in the eyes of man and its court systems? I think so, actually. I'm all about following the law, haha. If a citizen sees this person and is able to identify them correctly, why not just call someone (like the police) who's qualified to deal with it instead of illegally and dangerously trying to handle it yourself? Police are on stand-by for this sort of thing. I don't necessarily think that if someone impulsely acts upon it because they're worried about their loved ones and want to eliminate a violent person who's a cold stone killer that they should be charged with similar murder, but I think a small sentence should teach them to involve the law. The intent wasn't initially to break the law, and the nature of the killing would be for the benefit of the whole community/country rather than for some sort of sick, sadistic reason, but it's still illegal to kill. My opinion is that no one should step in for the law unless it's asked of us.
5. Eye for eye, blood for blood – simply means that it must be paid back in full. The blood which cries out must be justly given back when taken life. To balance and destroy nefarious acts; is it your government’s right to then hold a person for answering the blood/or should it always be within the right of “the people”? I'm not sure if I understand this question, but I believe the government should have the upper-hand in most cases. At least in this sort of situation. They know more about criminals than the average person does. The people are not the government, but the government is part of the people. We can't view the government as robots, they have feelings about this stuff too. I'd leave it in their hands though, because unlike the average person, they're more aware of serial killer cases and such and are likely to choose what's best rather than just going off of their feelings like a helpless citizen would.

Thank you for your input,

Basically you don't think the average citizen couldn't handle a serial killer objectively? Not saying your wrong or right, just wondering if you, (or perhaps even most Americans) believe people cannot handle their own, when the government fails in its duty? I'm curious. Doesn't exactly give a positive outlook on the abilities of the average citizen when it comes to discernment lol....

Grimes · Apr 12, 2015

†_Beast_† said:

I think most humans are just real stupid, so I guess no, I don't have much faith in them. I don't really think the government is any better, but at least they're already in a position to deal with certain matters. I don't see the average citizen being capable of anything other than complaining.

†_Beast_† · Apr 12, 2015

Grimes said:

LOL! This made me laugh. I know your being serious but yeah. Honestly, I think that's pretty sad and unfortunate. If only people realized their potential instead of focusing on thinking about their own limitations then they'd eventually unlock more in mind and body.

Your Government/Serial Killers

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro

Grimes

Quit.

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro

Grimes

Quit.

†_Beast_†

l'antico vampiro