me and my dad were watching an episode of a TV show where a serial killer gets hit by a car and goes into a coma. he had a group of women kidnapped and trapped in a prison somewhere and he had already killed one of them. then the main characters are able to decern the location of said women through the technology the show is based on, without the actual killer even being involved in any way.
the killer had a rich family who would want to cover up what he did, the main characters work for a secret organization who would want to cover up their involvement. all evidence came from the testimonies of the three surviving girls but through the whole time they saw the killer they were drugged pretty heavily, so that is put into question.
so, in the end one of the main characters decides to turn of his machines and let him die in a coma
me and my dad immediatly got into an argument about whether it was justified.
he said that killing a helpless man in a coma is never justified, and that killing him based what he MIGHT do is also unjustifyable, considering it's possible the killer may never wake up again. he beleived it was the job of the police and the justice system to do the killing, and only if that fails, he's woken up from the coma, and is killing again, is it justified. he considers this the universal conclusion for this situation and any like it.
i said that there were too many variables, too many people trying to cover it up. keeping him alive was taking too many chances, if he wakes up, it's likely he won't be convicted, if he isn't convicted, he'll kill again. taking matters into your own hands is the only way to ensure that the only person who'll die is the one that deserves to. i consider this solution to never be universal and that every situation like it should be taken on a case by case basis.
we usually disagree about certain things but this marks one of the few occasions where my Dad has called me comepletely and utterly wrong.
so i ask you, which of us is right? if we're both right or wrong, specify why. i won't add a poll since i think there are more answers to the question than i can conceive of right now
the killer had a rich family who would want to cover up what he did, the main characters work for a secret organization who would want to cover up their involvement. all evidence came from the testimonies of the three surviving girls but through the whole time they saw the killer they were drugged pretty heavily, so that is put into question.
so, in the end one of the main characters decides to turn of his machines and let him die in a coma
me and my dad immediatly got into an argument about whether it was justified.
he said that killing a helpless man in a coma is never justified, and that killing him based what he MIGHT do is also unjustifyable, considering it's possible the killer may never wake up again. he beleived it was the job of the police and the justice system to do the killing, and only if that fails, he's woken up from the coma, and is killing again, is it justified. he considers this the universal conclusion for this situation and any like it.
i said that there were too many variables, too many people trying to cover it up. keeping him alive was taking too many chances, if he wakes up, it's likely he won't be convicted, if he isn't convicted, he'll kill again. taking matters into your own hands is the only way to ensure that the only person who'll die is the one that deserves to. i consider this solution to never be universal and that every situation like it should be taken on a case by case basis.
we usually disagree about certain things but this marks one of the few occasions where my Dad has called me comepletely and utterly wrong.
so i ask you, which of us is right? if we're both right or wrong, specify why. i won't add a poll since i think there are more answers to the question than i can conceive of right now