is murder ever right?
550082
Depends on what type of murder you want to talk about.
635047
No, letting the government to kill someone is never justifiable because they are never 100% correct.
145430
"Murder" defines the ILLEGAL killing of another human being. Killing someone isn't "murder" until the killer is convicted of the crime of murder. So yes, killing a person is legal in most countries.\n\nOJ Simpson and Senator Ted Kennedy are classic examples of a "killer", but they're not  murderers. Doctors who perform abortion and euthanasia are "killers", but not murderers. Executioners are killers and so are drunk drivers in many cases. They usually aren't charged with nor convicted of murder.
1181888
he died for murders too , but that doesn't mean that its okay now to commit murder, your theory is faulty
860134
I beleive that once you have commited a heinous crime against another human being, not petty thfts, but say theft with an agrivated assault thrown in, that you automatically lose all rights as being treated like a human being. You shoot a criminal in your house after he or she has just brutalized your family, and now he can sue you for assault ? Screw that, I will shoot him dead and let him try to sue me for that ?\n\nBefore someone tries to say that me killing a criminal in my own house is just as wrong, I will tell you that defending your family and property to an uninvited guest is NOT criminal, and would most likely be considered justifiable homicide.
96649
I think it's a very misunderstood issue - the other answers confirm this. You can't simply label it "murder" and feel satisfied with yourself for being morally surperior. It's not that simple. \n\nIf an abortion takes place early on, this "human being" is still only a collection of cells, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.\n\nI refuse to decide whether it is right or wrong, however, because, I will admit, I am no expert on the subject. But neither are most of the people who have answered "Murder!" It is not our place to make that decision, nor is it anyone's place to harass a woman who is trying to decide whether or not to go through with one.
824279
yes. why should murder be legal? it is murder I don't care what anyone says that baby is alive when you kill it. If you don't want a baby then don't fvcking get pregnant
356632
Absolutly not!! I have spent a good part of my life reserching all the different religions, and one of the many things ALL religions have in common is "YOU SHOULD NOT KILL"!!!\n\nA person who kills in the name of God is one with serious mental problems. God in every religion teaches NOT to kill, so their is no justice in murder.
6917
Murder-you have no right to inflict harm unto another living soul. But sin and suicide are almost equally as bad. There is always an alternative.
747507
"Fair fight?"  How can it be fair?  If the people fighting originally were not shooting, just hitting with bare fists, maybe it could be "fair" by some stretch of the imagination.  Everyone aiming a gun at another person should be charged with attempted homicide, and those who killed someone?  Murder in the first degree.
105400
Absolutely, however there are much easier ways to go about killing someone. If you have you heart set on it though, go ahead.
393585
If you are referring to the death penalty, I'm all for it.  The more criminals who get the death penalty, the less taxes I have to pay to keep them alive!  \n\nIf you are asking if it is right to personally murder someone who murdered a loved one, no that is not right.  The legal process is in place to serve justice; it's not our place to do that.
800854
If the murdered person was an abuser, or murderer themselves, yes. Ordinary people no, can they not be the people they are, live the way they desire without being killed by a psyco?
987949
The issue is really the purpose behind the killing. Is it killing to get rid of injustice and oppression, or is it meaningless killing or killing based upon blind assumptions? \n\nIf its the first case, then killing is perfectly justified.
318080
I do believe violence is not the answer and that it should be a last resort. But the non-violent approach can be as bad as the violence way. Like lawyers they twist and manipulate words and facts, the media and the countries all do the same. In this case, it is screwing everyone over. Like that evidence is not admissible crap. We have a tape showing him murder this person, but we didn't legally obtain it, so not admissible. Total crap, its evidence one way or another. So non-violence can be as bad as violence in that nothing is ever totally fair for humanity. So is killing the person for killing someone else or letting the killer off because of some technicality worse, violence vs. non-violence?
321841
Criminals have one thing going for them: They know how to gain ones trust. This skill helps them the achieve their ultimate goal. That is why I believe a bit of skepticism when you meet people for the first time is OK. I don't think social morals are dying out, rather, they are changing. Although I don't think that murder and theft will ever be accepted in the literal sense, people have changed their ideas about right and wrong, and to the extent of which what is right and wrong measures. An example of this could be music and piracy laws (stealing), and murdering while depressed, etc. (my thought is murder is murder, and depression should not be used as an excuse, but I was brought up in old school beliefs). You can expect a lot of things to change. In 50 years, someone else is going to be asking the exact same question.
1174846
Murder is in the Ten Commandments. I think that takes precedent over pretty much anything (unless you mean embezzlement which = stealing which is also in there which means they are equal).