[ashleyjoseph]

If we knew about terrorists within our borders, and those terrorists had threatened an attack within our borders, and no government agency would take action to stop them, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them?

[Mimsykzr]

If we knew about terrorists within our borders, and those terrorists had threatened an attack within our borders, and no government agency would take action to stop them, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them?

Depends on who's definition of "justice" we're talking about.

If it's kill, or be killed, I choose the former.

[riverakathy]

Depends on who's definition of "justice" we're talking about.

If it's kill, or be killed, I choose the former.

The question is framed as it needs to be.

If known terrorists have threatened an attack within our borders, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them if the government did nothing to stop them?

[ddwayspd]

In a perfect world, yes. In reality, until they're actually in the process of committing terrorist acts, you can't off them

[Auzuigcx]

This brings to mind how on more than one occasion (and probably still happens) - the gov't employs the mob.

[Unonounaple]

I'm just sitting here wondering why you guys are afraid to vote.

It's a simple question...

[BrainTop]

I'm just sitting here wondering why you guys are afraid to vote.

It's a simple question...

I voted, and it was a very clear "No".

Nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands. Nobody, not me, not you, not even a cop.

[JacomoR]

I voted, and it was a very clear "No".

Nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands. Nobody, not me, not you, not even a cop.

So, even if you knew that they were going to attack us within our borders, you wouldn't kill them to stop them? You would let the attack happen?

[tutkarussia]

"Justified"? no. Would it be a good idea? maybe.

If you happen to "know" that there is a house full of jihadi's living down the block it may well be better to figure out what they're up to and and how they're being supported before offing them.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of extended "enhanced interrogation" than sending them off to their glory right away.

[brilkyPlayday]

"Justified"? no. Would it be a good idea? maybe.

If you happen to "know" that there is a house full of jihadi's living down the block it may well be better to figure out what they're up to and and how they're being supported before offing them.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of extended "enhanced interrogation" than sending them off to their glory right away.

Again, there will be no action by the government.

But the terrorists WILL attack. They've said as much.

Unless you have the ability to find out how they're being supported, or to conduct "enhanced interrogation", your options are limited.

Would you kill them if you were certain that was the only way to keep them from attacking us?

[AlexDatig]

In a perfect world, yes. In reality, until they're actually in the process of committing terrorist acts, you can't off them

You know they're going to bomb a school.

That school just happens to be your daughter's school.

Do you wait for the attack to happen before you kill them?

[russianstallian]

So, even if you knew that they were going to attack us within our borders, you wouldn't kill them to stop them? You would let the attack happen?

No, I would report it to the appropriate authorities and let them take care of it.

Now let me clarify, there is a difference between Self Defense, and Vigilantism.

I fully support the right of any individual to protect themselves. However, it sounds more like you are wanting to allow the "hunting" of terrorists, and that I do not support.

After all, what is next? And who is a terrorist? A lot of people would claim (and with justification) that drug dealers and gang members are Terrorists. Should we go out hunting them also?

And remember, I support self defense, but nobody has the right to kill another person. A person's death in the event of self defense is a consequence, but should never be the intent. Not to long ago there was a guy convicted of murder because after shooting a robber, he then gave the perp a "finishing shot" while he was laying on the ground.

[GoblinGaga]

If we knew about terrorists within our borders, and those terrorists had threatened an attack within our borders, and no government agency would take action to stop them, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them?

Who are "we"?

Don't get me wrong, but how high are the chances the "we" learn about a planned terrorist attack, before the real Stapo's know about it?

I don't see a likely chance of this event to ever happen and if I'd ever encourage it, I'd cooperate with the responsible authorities to prevent anything bad to happen ( as any good citizen should do!)

If my information were to be ignored/ridiculed and caused my loved ones to be hurt, I'd probably take justice into my own hands and eliminate the suckers unwilling to do their job and try to do the same to the wrong doing fuckers as well!

I am a humble, really friendly, balanced person, but I honestly know that if anyone was ever to hurt my family/people I care about I'll snap out and will turn to self justice!

[iOqedeyH]

You know they're going to bomb a school.

That school just happens to be your daughter's school.

Do you wait for the attack to happen before you kill them?

And how do you know they are going to attack her school?

You do not take the law into your own hands, you inform law enforcement. You also warn the school and do not send your daughter to school that day.

Also, it is a simple fact that 99% of people who would respond would be a greater danger to themselves and others then the terrorists would be. I doubt very many have the kind of training, experience, and weaponry to be effective even if they showed up at the scene with weapons ready to do.

All you would have is a case of Keystone Cops with guns blazing. Shooting each other and innocent bystanders instead of the suspected "terrorists".

And what if the "terrorists" turned out to be Sikhs having a Hola Mohalla celebration?

[Fekliopas]

No, I would report it to the appropriate authorities and let them take care of it.

Now let me clarify, there is a difference between Self Defense, and Vigilantism.

I fully support the right of any individual to protect themselves. However, it sounds more like you are wanting to allow the "hunting" of terrorists, and that I do not support.

I'm saying KNOWN terrorists who say they WILL attack within our borders.

No government agency has, or will take action against them. Report it all you want, it will mean nothing.

You know who they are, where they are, and the target of their attack. The government will do nothing.

Will you?

After all, what is next? And who is a terrorist? A lot of people would claim (and with justification) that drug dealers and gang members are Terrorists. Should we go out hunting them also? Look, if you don't want to answer the question, it's okay not to...

And remember, I support self defense, but nobody has the right to kill another person. A person's death in the event of self defense is a consequence, but should never be the intent. Not to long ago there was a guy convicted of murder because after shooting a robber, he then gave the perp a "finishing shot" while he was laying on the ground. The scenario I set up is somewhat different.

I'm simply asking if, in the face of inaction by your government, would you act to stop terrorists from attacking us within our borders. It would appear as though you would not.

You can go ahead and respond to the poll, then, and say "No"...

[lollypopz]

And how do you know they are going to attack her school?

Because they say "We're going to blow up THAT school"...

You do not take the law into your own hands, you inform law enforcement. You also warn the school and do not send your daughter to school that day. What day? You only know they're going to attack it; you don't know when...

Also, it is a simple fact that 99% of people who would respond would be a greater danger to themselves and others then the terrorists would be. I doubt very many have the kind of training, experience, and weaponry to be effective even if they showed up at the scene with weapons ready to do. So those 99% shouldn't even try to stop a definite attack?

And what if the "terrorists" turned out to be Sikhs having a Hola Mohalla celebration? And what if they're radical Muslims who want to kill American children on American soil.

Go ahead and vote "no". You've given no indication that you would try to stop an attack...

[Tic Tac Took]

I'm saying KNOWN terrorists who say they WILL attack within our borders.

No government agency has, or will take action against them. Report it all you want, it will mean nothing.

You know who they are, where they are, and the target of their attack. The government will do nothing.

Will you? .

Still don' get it, why you believe you'd ever know more about their intentions/plans than the professional Stapo's aassigned to the job!

I mean don't get me wrong, I'd kill and slaughter anyone who'd ever threatend/harmed my loved ones, but I just don't see myself to know more than the professionals, nor to having the info to prevent it!

[Talicoabilk]

The hypothetical situation presented is unlikely, but not unimaginable.
Under the given circumstances, knowing that people were going to be killed and the authorities refusing to act, yes, I would take action. I voted yes.

[oyymoss]

Go ahead and vote "no". You've given no indication that you would try to stop an attack...

*sighs, shaking head*

No, that is not what I am saying at all. In fact, out of everybody on this board I would probably have the most experience in actually doing something about this kind of event. I have the training needed, the experience, and even the equipment.

But you seem to be creating such a stupid scenario, and it just boggles my mind. I am supposed to believe that a normal civilian discovers a terrorist plot shortly before it happens, notifies the authorities who then do nothing, then is able to arrive at the scene with enough firepower to actually do something about it.

In real life, the moment the "Civilian Warrior" arrived on the scene with his AK-47, the Police will be called out in force to deal with the "idiot running around with guns".

Now this might make a good plot for a Chuck Norris, Arnold S, or Bruce Willis movie, but it is not real life. From what I keep reading, what you really have is a mentally unstable individual, who is very paranoid, xenophobic, and posesses weapons and is not afraid to use them.

OK, let's just take one "Real Life" scenario here. Let's take the Fort Dix plot, and have it take place in a school.

You have 5-10 individuals, who had spent several months training and rehearsing their attack. They have AK-47s, M-60 Machine guns, RPG-7, hand grenades, C-4, and body armour. Their intent is to enter in several different vehicles, and drive around trying to kill as many as possible. At the end of the attack they intend to blow up the cars with themselves in them.

Now what is our "Intreped Warrior" going to do? Stand in the middle of the school yard, blasting away at them like Rambo? Get each one as they arrived on the scene with a single head shot? Then somehow disable the triggers for the car bombs?

Basically, you are developing some kind of fantasy scenario, where nobody but the Mythic Warrior will be the one reacting. You are determined to stack the deck into such a way that nobody else will respond, and the response will actually do something.

Trust me, leave this to the professionals.

[russmodel]

If we knew about terrorists within our borders, and those terrorists had threatened an attack within our borders, and no government agency would take action to stop them, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them?

Absolutely. It would fall under self defense. And after dealing with the terrorists i would expect the govt to be overthrown.

Andrew