|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:47 pm
Everyone obviously remembers the tragedy of 9/11. As you are most likely aware, there were some people who chose to jump out the window (which guarunteed certain death) as opposed to burning up, most likely to avoid pain.
The act of jumping out the window was voluntary, correct? They jumped of their own free will (let us leave the debate on its existence out of this, please). Now, each jumper had a choice: Either die burning, or die jumping.
My question for you is, was this suicide? Or were the jumpers murdered by the terrorists, given that the terrorists were the ones who caused them to have the choice in the first place.
If you say suicide, take the law into consideration. If such incidents were considered suicide, would any terrorist just be able to threaten 'die painfully or jump' and be left innocent of murder?
What is your opinion on the subject, given that 'free will' exists?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 6:55 pm
I guess technically you could call it suicide, since it is through their own actions they are taking their life, but if they had not their life would have been taken anyway. Basically it's a "missed" murder: the terrorists would have killed them, thye just happened to hit lower on the building so while they survived the initial crash, they were going to die anyway because there was no way down. i would still call it murder, because it was a premeditated [successful] attempt to take someone's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:45 pm
Damn, that's a tough one. Well, they were going to die anyway, so I guess the choice was not to take their life, but how it was to end. Suicide, in the legal sense at least, is chosing to take ones life. So, give the circumstances, it wasn't suicide, but a chose, made by them, on how their murder was to take place. And yes, it was murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:15 pm
I wouldn't call it suicide. You could always make the argument that the victims in this case were presented with a biased choice, since the terrorists instigated the situation and forced the victims' hand. Being under such extreme constraints, I would say that their choice was not entirely free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:44 pm
I would call it murder, because on any other day, would they have jumped out of the window? I'm going to go ahead and assume no, as they were most likely successful, well-adjusted people.
So, the terrorists murdered them, because they most likely wouldn't have jumped out the window on any other day. Suicide is premeditated, and they had no premeditation, so I would call it murder for those reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:32 am
Can I call it "murder-suicide"? They definitely jumped of their own free will, but as you said, they were going to die either way. Almost like a forced-suicide.
I've often thought on this myself... what would I have done? I think I would risk jumping rather than burn to death... but I would try my damndest to make a lame parachute, although it is not likely to work at that height in those conditions with such little materials. Not like there were any sheets or curtains laying around, I'm sure. Very sad. I wonder if they have made any procedural changes in large skyscrapers because of that?? I would think a parachute would be dangerous, but it would certainly give you a better chance to survive than the alternatives. Or if they did a "zip line" from one building to another... but again, unless the other building was close and relatively the same height, you would probably gain way too much speed going down it. Very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:09 am
Hmm I would sya that is IT suicide, but....they probably wouldn't have jumped out of the building had a plane not been hurling itself at the two buildings. And so...if the law were to judge this one, I would have to say that it would still be considered as murder, because the people decided to jump at the risk of dying, though they were going to die anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:18 am
Risk, hell. People jumping off the WTC were goners, and they knew it going in.
It wasn't su!cide. It's been said simply, but I'll say it again. They were given a choice: die in flight or die in flames. There was no third option. Su!cide would have been knowing that third option existed and not taking it.
(Sorry about the typing anomalies...my web blocker is insane.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:14 pm
I never really considered it, since in that case, I wouldn't count it as suicide.
My reasoning is simillar...
1. They had the choice to attempt to escape, which could end in being burned (or crushed) to death.
2. Not do anything, which means burning or crushing to death, again.
3. Something I probably wouldn't have considered purposefully... jumping out the window to your death.
And, before I read the post about this following idea, I thought maybe it's a good idea to have a small parachute in case of something like that. Although common logic doesn't say that you would ever need one, especially in a building...
And, for 3, I would only go out the window if it were to make a sad attempt at getting to a floor below.
Probably screwed up thought... but would there be any chance if one were to be on the roof? Because I would think that maybe the rate at which the building collapses would be less than the rate of falling... but I wouldn't know. Most likely wouldn't make a difference once you hit groud zero...
So... not suicide, but maybe a last effort to live...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Murder- They faced certain death if they stayed in the building, burned or crushed to death. However, in jumping, they threw themselves free of their 2 biggest threats. The fire, and the collapsing building.
So, while it obviously couldn't work if they're 15 stories up, they were actally acting to save themselves. Since the attempt failed, and they died, it is still considered murder. For, although they did the best they could to 'prevent their deaths, the situation the terrotists created made it impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:52 pm
puresilver Murder- They faced certain death if they stayed in the building, burned or crushed to death. However, in jumping, they threw themselves free of their 2 biggest threats. The fire, and the collapsing building. So, while it obviously couldn't work if they're 15 stories up, they were actally acting to save themselves. Since the attempt failed, and they died, it is still considered murder. For, although they did the best they could to 'prevent their deaths, the situation the terrotists created made it impossible. Although all of you said a similar thing, puresilver worded it best. Well done. I do agree with you all; I simply posed the question because I was curious to see how you would answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:33 pm
But would they (the jumpers) call it murder? It might very well have been the last desperate act of desperate men and women, I won't deny it, but by calling it murder, don't you take away the free will of the people that jumped as mentioned in the first post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:54 pm
You're assuming that free will exists, Maze.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:49 pm
Cougar Draven You're assuming that free will exists, Maze. That assumption existed from the first post. Let us not turn this into a free will debate, please. Maze, you make a good point. The question that arises is, "Would the jumpers have jumped any other random day, or only under the terrorist threat?" If they were indeed suicidal individuals (which I doubt all of them were) then calling it murder could take their free will away, in a sense. But were all of the jumpers neccessarily jumping in order to die? Perhaps the primal purpose of the jump was to escape pain, in which case it would not be suicide, but rather an act of self-preservance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:01 am
Lesidia Maze, you make a good point. The question that arises is, "Would the jumpers have jumped any other random day, or only under the terrorist threat?" If they were indeed suicidal individuals (which I doubt all of them were) then calling it murder could take their free will away, in a sense. But were all of the jumpers neccessarily jumping in order to die? Perhaps the primal purpose of the jump was to escape pain, in which case it would not be suicide, but rather an act of self-preservance. While I agree with Ares that, on any other day, they probably wouldn't have jumped on account of most likely being successful and well-adjusted people, I'm not sure I can call it murder. I certainly can't call it suicide, no. For reasons stated before, by yourself as well as others. I do think the terrorists are responsible for their deaths, as their acts were directly responsible for their deaths, and I suppose, that does fit the definition of murder. Perhaps the term 'murder' just rankles me as I always viewed the choice to jump as a rational one based on the situation and the knowledge that there was no other way out. That this was it, and that the only thing left for them to decide was how to die. It was a subconscious assumption, and perhaps not the most logical one in hindsight, I admit, but then, my friends have known me to apply cold reason to emotional situations before. Still, I suppose that in this discussion, I would have to side with murder, as that comes closest to 'forcing people to choose their death' as I viewed it. I'm still unhappy with the term 'murder', though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
