Can A Person Be At Fault For Being Murdered?

Question

Has the relative bug infected us so much that we actually blame victims for being murdered?

5 people in my last question conceded this to be true...

"I am not sure what your point is but in my opinion it's not religion here, its stupidity. And if they want to label it as martyrdom, then that's fine. But they are still dead. And they have no one to blame but themselves."


I guess we should all just pack it in then. We should stop defending freedom of expression, press, and religion here and abroad. Anyone who pisses anyone off anywhere deserves to be murdered and it is their fault that they are murdered.

ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE?

You'd call the men in white coats for OCD? Do you have any understanding of mental disorders at all?

Answer 1

I feel if someone gets pissed off from another person they should do the adult thing and ignore that person. Let the sh!t roll off their backs. As long as a person is not coming towards you or behind you and poses as a threat, they should just keep it movin! I personally don't want anyone in my zone! Meaning that if I'm arguing with someone as long as they're a certain amount of feet away from me, it all good. But the minute they step up in my zone then it's on! Only the strong survive!

Answer 2

Murder – The unlawful killing of one human by another.
Murdered - law transitive and intransitive verb to kill another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law.

If one is killed according to this quick definition the answer would be no.

Now there can be a level of blame put on the victim but not for their own murder.

If there is a fire fight in the street and they walk out into the street like nothing is going on they are guilty of not paying attention to there surroundings. If they do notice the fire fight they are lacking commonsense.

I think the confusion is someone who is murdered because of their own idiocy is said to be an idiot. They are not being blamed for there own murder. They are at fault for not using basic survival skills to preserve their own life. The world has always been dangerous and death because lack of commonsense has killed people since the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed has been the kind of danger that is out there.

Think of it like this. The caveman who decides to take a stroll in an area a known wild animal lives at and has been there for many years. The caveman would be best advised to go with a weapon and with a group of other cavemen or not to go there at all.

Now if someone these days decides to go to a known bad part of town or a bad part of a country where violence is very high the same thing applies. They would be advised to go there with a lot of friends armed to the teeth or just stay out of that part of town.

An example: If someone flew to a war zone for vacation and it is known that he is from a country that is hated It would not be to smart. Now if he goes to a known area where the ones who hate his country have control over and he puts on a T shirt that says that his country is the best and should win the war if he gets killed what conclusion do you come to.

You can’t come to a conclusion because there are more then one conclusion to the scenario.

One conclusion is that someone murdered an unarmed man.

Another is the unarmed man was an idiot.

Do not mix up one conclusion with another. You may be talking about the fact someone murdered the unarmed man. But someone ells is talking about how the man who was murdered was an idiot.
Both conclusions can be correct. If you are going to argue over how you both see the situation make sure you are arguing about the same piece of the puzzle. You can probably agree the unarmed man showed signs of being an idiot. And the other can agree that he was murdered. If you want to know about violence in the world and people beginning to build up a tolerance for it that would be a whole different question that you could ask and make a reference to the answers you received to your current question. Answers to this question would be a good reference to that question. And for those of you who say an example that takes place in a war zone dose not apply the killing of an unarmed civilian is illegal. So according to the definition above this example is valid.

Answer 3

christians dont defend freedoms they take them away, GOD you need some Anafranil to tame your OCD! seriously If i could get your name and address Id call the men in white coats.

I think you need a rest and some anti psychotics.

Actually there have been people in mental asylums for OCD. Howard Hughes shouldve been put in one ever seen the Aviator?

Answer 4

Oh yes, absolutely. For example, that dumb girl who was shot to death last year in NYC by a young thief. She pretty much DARED him to shoot her. And he obliged.