Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[MontagK505]

No, it would still be a bad option as the choice of inaction is still an decision and action taken and it results in a death. As I have repeatedly stated, it is quite likely that many such circumstances and decisions have no good action option. In that case, you make a bad choice and accept the consequences of that choice, which at the very least means living the rest of your life knowing and acknowledging that you have robbed another human being of their life.

If the sniper in the example acknowledges and takes full responsibility (to themselves and perhaps to others) for what they did but does not feel bad about it is this wrong? Or worse, is it sociopathic? Is there any reason to suggest a sniper, who doesn't feel bad about what they had to do, is likely to be a menace to others?

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>


Well, if you think all your thoughts are right doesn't that seem to short circuit any form of self analysis? Besides, I don't think others have been calling your thoughts wrong in an Orwellian sense.

<snip>

I think what others have encouraged you to do is to look at decisions That is not saying you will get a bad decision, but history has shown us that many bad decisions start by dehumanizing a group of humans. We should not ignore that history.

Thinking your own thoughts without a bunch of sanctimonious moralizing it is not the same as thinking your thoughts are automatically right. Suppose the sniper in our hostage taking example discovers that in this particular situation he doesn't feel bad about the decision he made to shoot. Does this seriously mean he is standing on a moral slippery slope about to slide into the abyss of a psychotic killer? Suppose the hostages were a bunch of elementary school children? Does that change anything? It's quite possible that on the scale of things the the "bad" thing he did is miniscule compared with the good result. And he shouldn't feel bad because he doesn't feel bad about it. This is not the same as dehumanizing an entire group of humans.

 

[newyorkguy]

I was living in Park Slope about 10 years ago. I have no doubt that killing a person exacts an emotional toll on cops. Having lived most of my life in the NY metro area, I'm interested in this particular case. I'm sure the tabloids, especially the Post, would have jumped all over such a dramatic situation...

I think what you're misunderstanding is here, it was no big story. It was a kid shot by police after brandishing a gun. End-of-story. There was no outcry, there was no controversy, it was just a routine police shooting.

The resignations came later. First the officers had to go through a process with the NYPD Firearms Review Board. That apparently went routinely. I think the two officers who decided to resign then requested or had already requested vacation time or a brief leave-of-absence. None of this became public I don't think. Why would it? After returning to work the officers decided to resign. They didn't want to be cops anymore. One of them was reported to have told friends, "I didn't come on this job to kill people for the City of New York. I'm done."

It's like another story I heard about. The Transit Police lieutenant who shot a kid during an armed encounter following an armed robbery. Then visited him in the hospital when he (the lieutenant) found out this boy hadn't gotten any visitors. He was from a dysfunctional family and the lieutenant supposedly told people as a father of a teenaged boy he just felt...really bad for this kid. (Who later died, too.)

I don't think you could find that in a news archive either. (The shooting took place at a Bronx station -- I don't know which one -- on the No. 6 train about twenty-five years ago.) The behind-the-scenes stuff is kept behind the scenes. There's all kinds of things going on in New York City, probably every big-city (and everywhere else, too) that don't make it into the news.

As the officer said in the first link, this is not the kind of story police departments want publicized. Probably not the kind of story your average Post reader has much interest in reading, either.

 

[Trakar]

If the sniper in the example acknowledges and takes full responsibility (to themselves and perhaps to others) for what they did but does not feel bad about it is this wrong? Or worse, is it sociopathic? Is there any reason to suggest a sniper, who doesn't feel bad about what they had to do, is likely to be a menace to others?

It probably is not proper to focus on sociopathy, which is more parallel rather than directly related to our discussion of "Good" and "Bad" decisions and actions. Not feeling and reacting with normal emotions can be an indication of an emotional or psychological disorder (eg "shock" is a common issue where distress can generate emotional anesthesia, likewise, some people have developed repressive tendencies to suppress and repress their more normal emotional reactions). Whether or not that is "wrong" is a judgment call.

Sociopathy, in and of itself is not "bad" or "wrong," it is simply abnormal. Many of our most successful businessmen are clinically sociopaths, in fact they are probably very successful because of some of their sociopathic traits. This does not mean that all of their choices are bad, nor that they are bad people, merely that they have found a profession where their psychological propensities provides them with a benefit.

As I stated before, sociopathy doesn't necessarily mean that a person is, or will be, a criminal, or even that they are prone to committing morally "bad" actions and choices. There are a lot of functioning, outwardly rather normal seeming people with sociopathy who are good neighbors, friends and spouses. That said, a very large percentage of criminals also exhibit sociopathic traits.

Being able to emotionally disconnect oneself from other people, and being able or even prone to rationalizing one's own actions as "good," regardless of objective or societal norm considerations can be problematic and may lead to a disregard of the considerations and rights of others when they conflict with your own rationalized "good" choices and decisions. These are the thought processes that can make it easy for an individual to commit crimes and/or bad acts. They feel no remorse or sympathy because in their minds these others either don't matter or they deserve what happens to them.

Notice my heavy application of conditionals like "can, might, and may," people always have the ability to make choices and a tendency or propensity is more like a statistical path of least resistance, not a guarantee or even likelihood when it comes to the complex nature of human behavior.

 

[newyorkguy]

If the sniper in the example acknowledges and takes full responsibility (to themselves and perhaps to others) for what they did but does not feel bad about it is this wrong?

"This type of mentality is very common on the part of the general public....Everything is black and white, right and wrong. If the shooting is justified, there are no problems..." Keith Bettinger retired Suffolk County (N.Y.) Police Officer, Master’s Degree in Human Relations

If a sniper has no regrets is that bad? Can't you understand people are talking about the act of killing always being bad in a way that transcends the question of whether it is sometimes justified?

I recently read a story about an infantry soldier in Iraq who, having been ordered to clear the second-floor of a house his platoon was raiding, saw a furtive movement under a bed, ordered the person to come out and when they didn't he fired. The family had hidden an infant under the bed and the soldier's rifle fire killed him.

The soldier said at the time he had no regrets. It was accidental. (Turned out they had been given bad intel too; they were looking for rifles cached by insurgency sympathizers but were sent to the wrong house.) But in a combat zone there was no time to reflect, no time to process what was happening. Now years afterwards he's got severe emotional problems.

I read about the so-called 'super-sniper,' the one who wrote the book. Friends and family say he had lots of emotional problems too. But no regrets about killing...what was it? One hundred sixty enemy?

 

[trustbutverify]

I think what you're misunderstanding is here, it was no big story. It was a kid shot by police after brandishing a gun. End-of-story. There was no outcry, there was no controversy, it was just a routine police shooting.

A 17 year old dies in a hail of gunfire from three NYC police officers after menacing his neighbors waving a handgun around, and the most ferocious news cycle in the world makes no mention of it whatsoever? That seems a bit...odd. Now I'm really interested in learning more about this incident.

I worked as a clerk at Newsday when they had a NYC edition, and the police blotter reporters seemed to be highly aggressive when it came to police shootouts-particularly involving a fatality. It seems unlikely (to say the least) they would ignore a story like this. But I guess anything is possible.

The good news is public records will be surely be available concerning a civilian being shot to death by NYC police officers. And, from what I understand, the NY CCRB (Civilian Complaint Review Board) keeps meticulous records on all Police shootings, not to mention the NYCLU. So, with a little help from you, I'm confident I can find out all about this case.

If you could just give your police friend a call and get a little more information, I would really appreciate it. The name of the victim, an approx date for the shooting (at least the year!), and the Brooklyn precinct number these officers were working out of. Thanks!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thinking your own thoughts without a bunch of sanctimonious moralizing it is not the same as thinking your thoughts are automatically right. Suppose the sniper in our hostage taking example discovers that in this particular situation he doesn't feel bad about the decision he made to shoot. Does this seriously mean he is standing on a moral slippery slope about to slide into the abyss of a psychotic killer?

I don't think so. If he has done the analysis and feels comfortable that there were no non-deadly options and he has done his job to protect innocents in the least deadly way possible, then he may be less emotional than others in his position, but not psychotic. But if he feels good that he was able to justify the killing rather than taking a non-deadly option, then I think we are heading towards a problem.

ETA: No one is saying the sniper who makes a justified kill is a bad person. They are likely a good person who had to take a tough action. To ignore that this is a tough action, even when justified, is to belittle those who have to deal with the trauma of those tough actions throughout their lives. To expect them to have no trauma is counter to our experience. Taking a life takes a toll on the men who must do it, no matter how justified.

Suppose the hostages were a bunch of elementary school children? Does that change anything? It's quite possible that on the scale of things the the "bad" thing he did is miniscule compared with the good result. And he shouldn't feel bad because he doesn't feel bad about it. This is not the same as dehumanizing an entire group of humans.

I really think you are misreading the argument here. The analysis is the same whether it is a drug addict taking another addict hostage and you have to kill the hostage taker to save the other criminal or an escaped mass murderer with his finger on a mythical bomb that will kill all the innocents in the world. Start with every life being valuable. There is no reason to devalue one life from the beginning. There is no need to dehumanize anyone.

A person's actions may put their own life in peril, and the consequence of that may be death. But if death can be avoided, even for one who has shown disregard for the life of another, that is preferable. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? It almost seems willful at this point.

 

[MontagK505]

If a sniper has no regrets is that bad? Can't you understand people are talking about the act of killing always being bad in a way that transcends the question of whether it is sometimes justified?
I recently read a story about an infantry soldier in Iraq who, having been ordered to clear the second-floor of a house his platoon was raiding, saw a furtive movement under a bed, ordered the person to come out and when they didn't he fired. The family had hidden an infant under the bed and the soldier's rifle fire killed him.

The soldier said at the time he had no regrets. It was accidental. (Turned out they had been given bad intel too; they were looking for rifles cached by insurgency sympathizers but were sent to the wrong house.) But in a combat zone there was no time to reflect, no time to process what was happening. Now years afterwards he's got severe emotional problems.

I read about the so-called 'super-sniper,' the one who wrote the book. Friends and family say he had lots of emotional problems too. But no regrets about killing...what was it? One hundred sixty enemy?

In this instance I am asking about feelings not justice. If you tell someone they should not feel bad when they in fact do is just as bad as the opposite. I would feel terrible if I killed an infant in the situation described. It seems likely that the solder involved was trying to keep up a stoic tough guy image to mask his real feelings. I suspect this happens a lot in combat situations. This BTW is a different situation than a sniper who saves an innocent hostage. My dispute is with the idea that "You must be a sociopath if your emotional responses don't match some abstract criteria."

 

[Trakar]

...My dispute is with the idea that "You must be a sociopath if your emotional responses don't match some abstract criteria."

As stated, I don't think anyone that has been involved in this exchange would argue with your dispute. What you state has not been argued against and is not what anyone, that I have seen, has stated or claimed. Rather the opposite in fact.

 

[newyorkguy]

..It seems likely that the solder involved was trying to keep up a stoic tough guy image to mask his real feelings. I suspect this happens a lot in combat situations...

Having served in a combat zone in Viet-Nam, I think the soldier in Iraq right at that moment was probably mostly relieved he wasn't the one who wound up dead. What people sometimes fail to realize is, the vulnerability people feel in combat. You never know in advance if this time it's going to be your time. Seeing how random violence can be -- a really smart soldier unluckily gets decapitated by shrapnel in a mortar blast that leaves the platoon dunce standing next to him unscathed -- I think your immediate reaction is probably relief that someone got killed and it wasn't you.

It's only afterwards that the other feelings start making themselves known. You begin to feel guilt. You start remembering when your best buddy got hit your fleeting thought was, "Glad it wasn't me." Given the impossible standards an unknowing public applies to combat, the nonsensical attitudes people express about killing, you feel guilty. And who can you tell? Your family and ruin the image they have of you? Other veterans, wrestling with their own problems?

 

[trustbutverify]

Having served in a combat zone in Viet-Nam, I think the soldier in Iraq right at that moment was probably mostly relieved he wasn't the one who wound up dead. What people sometimes fail to realize is, the vulnerability people feel in combat. You never know in advance if this time it's going to be your time. Seeing how random violence can be -- a really smart soldier unluckily gets decapitated by shrapnel in a mortar blast that leaves the platoon dunce standing next to him unscathed -- I think your immediate reaction is probably relief that someone got killed and it wasn't you.

Wow, combat in Viet-Nam! That sounds really intense. Thank you for your service, and welcome home soldier.

Have you contacted your cop friend yet regarding the information I requested about that kid who got gunned down by the police? I'm really eager to get started. Just to remind you:

If you could just give your police friend a call and get a little more information, I would really appreciate it. The name of the victim, an approx date for the shooting (at least the year!), and the Brooklyn precinct number these officers were working out of.

Once again, thanks.

 

[KumarS]

Extremism is rarely a good response to perceived extremism.

I agree.
This is why I wrote "Following your own argument"..

Where did he argue that people who haven't butchered another human being should remove themselves from society?

Nowhere.
I also happen to agree that people who haven't butchered or supported the killing another human being should not remove themselves from society

 

[KumarS]

Indeed. We often resort to means of punishment that say more about us than the offender. Sure enough, people who commit these crimes must be dealt with, but acting out of a desire for revenge serves no one.

Actually, it has even more profound implications than that.
People who murder other people need to be dealt with, but they may have thousands of reasons that, while do not justify their act, at least may make their act somehow understandable.
But people who are not even remotely involved in a situation and ask for the murder by death penalty of another human being have no excuse whatsoever.
This is why people who support death penalty may be a step lower in the moral ladder than people who kill 8-year-olds.

 

[KumarS]

5. On the Death Penalty, I don't see how putting the likes of Ian Watkins or Jeffrey Dahmer on an electric chair is a sign that society had failed so much as "these are vile monsters who have forfeited their right to life because their crimes were so heinous".

I do not see how society has failed either.
Society is just committing a murder on the lines of Mr. Dahmer` s.
And people not coming out against this murder are on the same level of Mr. Dahmer.
So, it all boils down to what you see as "failed"

 

[KumarS]

Context.

Those who would commit 9/11, or gang rape and murder two teenage girls and hang their bodies from a tree do plenty enough by their actions to label themselves as subhuman.

Along with those who kill or support the killing an unarmed human being by electrocution or hanging.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Along with those who kill or support the killing an unarmed human being by electrocution or hanging.

I do not see how society has failed either.
Society is just committing a murder on the lines of Mr. Dahmer` s.
And people not coming out against this murder are on the same level of Mr. Dahmer.
So, it all boils down to what you see as "failed"

There's a massive difference between a judge sentencing a murderer to death via state-authorised methods under due process of law (Arrest, prosecution, trial, sentencing), and murdering someone and defiling their body.

Actually, it has even more profound implications than that.
People who murder other people need to be dealt with, but they may have thousands of reasons that, while do not justify their act, at least may make their act somehow understandable.
But people who are not even remotely involved in a situation and ask for the murder by death penalty of another human being have no excuse whatsoever.
This is why people who support death penalty may be a step lower in the moral ladder than people who kill 8-year-olds.

Death Penalty is NOT Murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person, while the Death Penalty is an extension of the state's monopoly on force. And I doubt there's much "Understanding" for the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer or Andrei Chikatilo (Evil to the core).

 

[epepke]

The report is that the girls were Dalits or "untouchables." Recent experiences with Indians indicate to me that the caste system is alive and well. Likely the assailants didn't consider the girls human in the first place. In no way does this exculpate the criminals, but castes also really need to go bye-bye.

 

[trustbutverify]

But people who are not even remotely involved in a situation and ask for the murder by death penalty of another human being have no excuse whatsoever.
This is why people who support death penalty may be a step lower in the moral ladder than people who kill 8-year-olds.

People who support capitol punishment for crimes of extreme cruelty are not morally lower than people who murder 8 year olds. However, people who think that are intellectually lower than 8 year olds.

 

[trustbutverify]

I do not see how society has failed either.
Society is just committing a murder on the lines of Mr. Dahmer` s.
And people not coming out against this murder are on the same level of Mr. Dahmer.
So, it all boils down to what you see as "failed"

Nope.

 

[trustbutverify]

The report is that the girls were Dalits or "untouchables." Recent experiences with Indians indicate to me that the caste system is alive and well. Likely the assailants didn't consider the girls human in the first place. In no way does this exculpate the criminals, but castes also really need to go bye-bye.

I agree with you about the Indian caste system. However, raping and lynching a non-human is no less an atrocity to me.