If someone shoots and kills a person during a robbery, and another shoots and kills someone as a result of..?

Question

... a hunting accident. Are they both EQUALLY morally culpable?

In the end two people shoot someone who dies. Is one less moral than the other?


Thanks in advance

If you would like to see the impetus for my question, you check here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjkRPTThkTMzh27dEdoeN6fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071001191502AAR8CwD&show=7#profile-info-WF0VVhNQaa

Oops, let me clarify: I meant that the ROBBER shoots and kills someone.

Answer 1

one is a "accident." the other took a gun and made a choice to do it, no it's not the same.
if I tie someone up with duct tape and lay them behind the wheel of my truck then run over them and kill them , am I as guilty as the guy who hit a jay walker? NO

Answer 2

There's an important difference between and accident and deliberately shooting someone.

If you commit a robbery with a gun, you are prepared to shoot someone. If you are hunting, you are not targeting a person.

So right there, motivation is different. The robber morally corrupt for being willing to shoot a person.

Also, after the shots have been fired it makes a huge difference on how the shooter feels. If the robber is truly sorry and regrets his actions, while the hunter laughs about it or doesn't care. Then the robber is morally superior to that particular hunter.

Moral issues are more about motive and guilt than about the event itself.

Answer 3

There was a Republican holding a political office that accidentally shot a Democrat holding a political office in a hunting accident a few years ago. The media tried to turn it into a party politics thing because he could've been an Independent but it was not intentional.

I believe accidentally shooting someone in a hunting accident a person is less morally culpable than in an armed robbery. With robbery there is more premeditation involved that if necessary you are indeed going to kill someone. With hunting there is no premeditation that you are going to kill a person that day.

Answer 4

Just as is in current criminal law....you must ask the question and establish "Intent"

If there was no "Intent" to take a life.....purely an accident.... there is no crime of murder. However, the person killing by accident will probably suffer psychologically worse than the cold blooded killer.

As it is commonly read in Sacred Scripture,the 5th Commandment says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill"..... it should more properly say, "Thou Shalt Not Murder another Human Being" because people regularly kill animals of all sorts in hunting and in food processing. Not the same thing. We cannot simply live by a blanket statement of Thou Shalt Not Kill.

And what about legitimate self defense? Is that murder? No.

Considering the previous question about governments and terrorists..... Apples and Oranges in this case. One question has absolutely nothing in comparison to the other. Totally different issues.

The bottom line to establishing criminality or immorality to any killing is (1) was the killing intentional? and (2) was the intentional planned killing done on innocent life? This is murder. We are excluding legitimate self defense such as the sworn duty of Law Enforcement and Military. However, again, there is never an exclusion to the intentional killing of innocent life.

Answer 5

Morals have really nothing to do with this question. It is considered immoral by our society to kill a person regardless of the circumstances, but one is at fault more than the other and in the latter case the person is innocent provided he was hunting legally, was allowed to carry weapons, and had followed the various other hunting codes.

The robber shot and killed a person fully knowing what he was doing and aware of the consequences of a bullet to a body. The hunter is not aiming to shoot and kill a person on purpose, but accidentally does due to thinking he sees a deer rather than a bright orange marker.

Intentional murder is seen as immoral to us, but accidental murder (though disagreeable) is asked for forgiveness as "to err is human" and all that jazz.

Answer 6

Obviously, a robber who shoots and kills someone while robbing the place would be, in my opinion, anyhow, guilty of both robbery and murder.
They guy who ACCIDENTALLY shoots someone while hunting (specifying that it was, indeed, a real ACCIDENT, of course), is not guilty of anything except, maybe, foolishness.

Since you asked this in the R&S section, I'm guessing that you want a religious viewpoint...as I am a Christian, here is mine:
Even God set certain cities aside for people who had had the unfortunate experience of accidentally killing someone...BUT, He says, if it is proven that the man is guilty, there is no sanctuary for him.

Answer 7

I think the criminal law would definitely provide a distinction between these two shootings; killing someone in the act of committing a felony is first degree murder, I believe. An accidental shooting could be only involuntary manslaughter.

As to moral law - I'm not too sure. They are both equally dead, and you are equally responsible. Either way, it would be something to repent of IMO.

Answer 8

If I had killed someone in a shooting accident I would consider myself to be utmost at fault.
It was I who picked up the thing and it was I who pulled the trigger.
If one decides to pull the trigger of a lethal weapon, then one must be prepared to face the consequences even the unintended ones.
The tragedy of our human existence is that we cannot reverse the effects of some mistakes. If I had killed the parent of a child or the child of some parent, what possible reparation can I make?

Answer 9

One is on purpose and the other is an accident, and there is a huge difference.

Just like in law, where you have mens rea (intent) and actus reus (the action itself) and you need both elements to make it criminal.

Same action, completely different intents = different moral views of it.

Answer 10

No. Same same as far as my morals go. The robber needed killing and the hunter was an accident.