if someone offered you 1m to kill someone

[Richie]

If someone offered you 1 million £ to kill someone & there was no possibilities of you ever getting caught for the crime, would you do it? Strangely enough there was a poll on my local radio and the yes vote won, people have no morals, i couldn't, even if it was to kill an arsebandit like habbic.

[David]

yes

[Empired]

Not a chance. If somehow I did I'd kill myself soon after no doubt about it.

[Gina]

depends on who the person was really
theres only like 1 person i could actually kill
anyone else id have too much guilt

even if i didnt know them
just the guilt of killing them

[scottish]

are we free to choose who?

yes.

[welshcake]

Yes
Edit: lol unless it's family or people I like :')
Edit again: idk maybe not
ok I thought about it I'm changing to a no. :/

[buttons]

no...... money isn't that important to me.

[Richie]

Wispur; Phil; Nick; can you make the poll public so we can see who voted

[scottish]

I don't believe they can.

[Kyle]

Assuming someone else is being offered the same deal to kill me then yh. If the deal is only for me nah I can live without the money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris]

Can't make the poll public now that its been posted.

Also no I wouldn't! Money really isn't everything, especially if you had to take another persons life to get it. Blood money, quite literally!!

[Mikey]

If it was someone that has caused harm towards another (rape, murder, abuse etc.) then maybe. Would have to be for a very good reason, wouldn't just go and do it if person asking me was annoyed with them haha.

[sexpot]

wouldn't even think twice about it tbh, yes

[benzoberzerk]

I have plenty of people i personally think deserve to die. But then again, i don't think anyone on this planet has the right to decide who "deserves" to die, no matter what they have done. And besides, if i did kill someone i would probably want people to know about it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I would not even consider it.

If I got my pick and could choose the likes of Ian Huntley or somebody convicted of murder, then sure. But innocent? No. And I bet some of the people who have said they would in the poll are the same suspects who always argue against the death penalty based on possibility of it killing innocent people. Just my hunch there, but you have to laugh.

[Chippiewill]

Depends on who it is. If they're a bad person then sure.

[Ms.Aquamarine]

I would never do that. Makes me cringe even thinking about it.. :(

[AgnesIO]

No I would not even consider it.

If I got my pick and could choose the likes of Ian Huntley or somebody convicted of murder, then sure. But innocent? No. And I bet some of the people who have said they would in the poll are the same suspects who always argue against the death penalty based on possibility of it killing innocent people. Just my hunch there, but you have to laugh.

Money talks.

But yeah, death penalty too.

[Shar]

No I wouldn't, the idea to kill for money is horrible.

[AgnesIO]

No I wouldn't, the idea to kill for money is horrible.

Is that not effectively what armies do? I know their reasoning is defense, but they are essentially paid to kill people when told to.

[Shar]

Is that not effectively what armies do? I know their reasoning is defense, but they are essentially paid to kill people when told to.
And I hate that concept.

[Hannah]

I hate everyone, so yeah.

[buttons]

if i get offered 1m to kill anyone im gna choose someone in this thread who said they'd do it ;l

[AgnesIO]

if i get offered 1m to kill anyone im gna choose someone in this thread who said they'd do it ;l

bit contradictory of you ;l

[buttons]

that was part of the joke ;l god go back to SCHOOL!

[AgnesIO]

that was part of the joke ;l god go back to SCHOOL!

I KNOW ;l clearly my ' ;l ' FACE DOESN'T TRANSLATE

god to back to NURSERY ;l

[Oleh]

Largely depends on who it is, if they fit my criteria then sure, why not.

Is this a job interview? Because count me in! :D

[Kyle]

Largely depends on who it is, if they fit my criteria then sure, why not.

Is this a job interview? Because count me in! :D

Fit your criteria? You sound like an assassin. What's your criteria?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oleh]

Middle aged male; Recent divorcee; No children; Mediocre job with no hope of bettering

OR

Banker, Door to Door salesman, Telemarketer, PPI telephoner or a Parcel Delivery driver (Mainly Yodel for making me always have to wait in for a delivery for it to come at 7pm)

[jake87385]

I don't think money is a justified enough reason for me to want to pull the trigger on someone. If the person posed a threat to my family/close friends and you said "I'll give you this money if you kill him" I would probably consider.

[Chloe7355]

depends on who

[James]

£1m is obv a lot, but not worth a life

[dbgtz]

If I could choose, I probably would choose wisely. But if it was a randomer who could be a saint but equally could be Hitler, then no.

[Lewis]

In the end I certainly know I would not because at the end of the day I have no right to end someone's life in this money scenario, even if there was temptation. It wouldn't be worth it, it's just wrong and I'd feel guilty for the rest of my life despite whoever they may be - even if they were a murderer themselves.

[Brad]

I don't think any amount of money could justify ending someone's life. Whether they've done something bad, or "against the rules."

[Kellie]

I couldn't take someones life for money

[Joshirin]

I'd do it for free, aka as a job.

One of the many reasons I may apply for the army, I could kill anybody without any remorse (unless animal, or kid really)

[e5]

Nope, couldn't ever live with myself with the guilt and knowing I took someone's brother/sister/dad/mum/friend away. No no. Wouldn't ever kill anyone unless they straight were about to kill someone infront of me and the only way to prevent it would be by killing them

- - - Updated - - -


I'd do it for free, aka as a job.

One of the many reasons I may apply for the army, I could kill anybody without any remorse (unless animal, or kid really)
I think you need help

[AgnesIO]

I don't think any amount of money could justify ending someone's life. Whether they've done something bad, or "against the rules."

Surely the level of 'bad' gets to a stage where you could justify it, though? Like mass-murdering scum?

[jake87385]

I'd do it for free, aka as a job.

One of the many reasons I may apply for the army, I could kill anybody without any remorse (unless animal, or kid really)

When you say animal, does that mean you wouldn't go hunting but you'd shoot somebody? Also, this may be a stupid question as I think you're american but have you used a firearm before? As I'm guessing we are talking shooting not death by spoon.

[Brad]

Surely the level of 'bad' gets to a stage where you could justify it, though? Like mass-murdering scum?

I guess you're right but yeah.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Joshirin]

When you say animal, does that mean you wouldn't go hunting but you'd shoot somebody? Also, this may be a stupid question as I think you're american but have you used a firearm before? As I'm guessing we are talking shooting not death by spoon.

Yes I wouldn't shoot an animal, especially hunting, it's just traumatising and basically making th animal look like utter crap having all their dogs and whatever else chasing the poor thing, before being tortured and killed. Also humans are greedy and the worst kind of specie on this earth, despite this I still love living and family and friends.
No I'm british and have used various guns before

- - - Updated - - -


Nope, couldn't ever live with myself with the guilt and knowing I took someone's brother/sister/dad/mum/friend away. No no. Wouldn't ever kill anyone unless they straight were about to kill someone infront of me and the only way to prevent it would be by killing them

- - - Updated - - -


I think you need help

why? who else is going to kill the terrorists abroad with a good heart?

I said I'd do it without consequences, sadly their are consequences so I wouldn't, unless ordered too which relates back to the army, police or whatever else

[jake87385]

Yes I wouldn't shoot an animal, especially hunting, it's just traumatising and basically making th animal look like utter crap having all their dogs and whatever else chasing the poor thing, before being tortured and killed. Also humans are greedy and the worst kind of specie on this earth, despite this I still love living and family and friends.
No I'm british and have used various guns before



I've been hunting before, nothing big, rabbits and other pests and they've always been clean kills and as much as I value all life, I can't help but think taking a rabbits life is nothing in comparison to a humans. 'Traditional' fox hunting or anything with dogs attacking the animal I am against though.

[AgnesIO]

I've been hunting before, nothing big, rabbits and other pests and they've always been clean kills and as much as I value all life, I can't help but think taking a rabbits life is nothing in comparison to a humans. 'Traditional' fox hunting or anything with dogs attacking the animal I am against though.

So it is fine for you to shoot an animal (unnatural in nature), but not for a dog to hunt an animal (natural in nature)?

[jake87385]

So it is fine for you to shoot an animal (unnatural in nature), but not for a dog to hunt an animal (natural in nature)?

A bunch of men on horses chasing foxes with a pack of dogs is not natural. They rip the fox to bits while its still alive for 'fun'. Hence why fox hunting with dogs is illegal.

Hunting an animal and then eating it is what humans have been doing for years, it's just the method of doing so that's changed.

[AgnesIO]

A bunch of men on horses chasing foxes with a pack of dogs is not natural. They rip the fox to bits while its still alive for 'fun'. Hence why fox hunting with dogs is illegal.

Hunting an animal and then eating it is what humans have been doing for years, it's just the method of doing so that's changed.

Will you eat the humans, too?

Take out humans, and the dogs will shred the fox to death anyway. Place humans into the mix and we 'tame' dogs to be pets.

[jake87385]

Will you eat the humans, too?

Take out humans, and the dogs will shred the fox to death anyway. Place humans into the mix and we 'tame' dogs to be pets.

(most) Humans and animals only kill for survival. Fox hunting is killing for entertainment and is as sickening as a public execution.

And no personally I wouldn't eat a human, unless that is like a twisted invitation for dinner?

[Empired]

Surely the level of 'bad' gets to a stage where you could justify it, though? Like mass-murdering scum?
Who gets to decide when the level of 'bad' gets to the stage where you can justify it? Also just because they've done terrible things, does that give you the right to commit similar crimes back? Killing a murderer is still murder.


Will you eat the humans, too?

Take out humans, and the dogs will shred the fox to death anyway. Place humans into the mix and we 'tame' dogs to be pets.
All dogs are bred for different things. You have hunting dogs (typically terriers) who will rip apart rats, rabbits, etc. but you also have sheepdogs, guard dogs, lapdogs.. We didn't train dogs to be pets, selective breeding meant we kept choosing the ones with the nicest nature to breed and so on until the family tree went from vicious wolves to tamed house pets. Not all dogs will rip apart a fox if they're given the chance, guard dogs like shih-tzus would probably only be interested in the chase.

[AgnesIO]

(most) Humans and animals only kill for survival. Fox hunting is killing for entertainment and is as sickening as a public execution.

And no personally I wouldn't eat a human, unless that is like a twisted invitation for dinner?

What, an people going on pheasant shoots isn't for entertainment?


Who gets to decide when the level of 'bad' gets to the stage where you can justify it? Also just because they've done terrible things, does that give you the right to commit similar crimes back? Killing a murderer is still murder.


All dogs are bred for different things. You have hunting dogs (typically terriers) who will rip apart rats, rabbits, etc. but you also have sheepdogs, guard dogs, lapdogs.. We didn't train dogs to be pets, selective breeding meant we kept choosing the ones with the nicest nature to breed and so on until the family tree went from vicious wolves to tamed house pets. Not all dogs will rip apart a fox if they're given the chance, guard dogs like shih-tzus would probably only be interested in the chase.

You have the chance to eliminate someone responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. Or someone for the deaths of 6,000,000 people. Or 1,500,000 people. Do you think it would be wrong of me to take that chance to stop that happening?

Your thing about dogs is nullified immediately by "all dogs are bred for different things". What do dogs do where there are no humans interfering? No rubbish to go through for food? Whether they are shih-tzus or something else, they still have to eat.. and sorry to announce, but that revolves around killing something. Primarily speaking, dogs are carnivores (although can act in an omnivorous way).

I am not saying I agree with fox hunting; just to claim that a dog wouldn't kill without humans around is somewhat naive.

[Empired]

You have the chance to eliminate someone responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. Or someone for the deaths of 6,000,000 people. Or 1,500,000 people. Do you think it would be wrong of me to take that chance to stop that happening?
You should really show some self restraint. If you kill and think later we may end up in a situation like with Lee Harvey Oswald. We never found out anything about how John F. Kennedy was really killed because some idiot decided to take the law (so-called "justice") into his own hands which just caused more problems than it started.


Your thing about dogs is nullified immediately by "all dogs are bred for different things". What do dogs do where there are no humans interfering? No rubbish to go through for food? Whether they are shih-tzus or something else, they still have to eat.. and sorry to announce, but that revolves around killing something. Primarily speaking, dogs are carnivores (although can act in an omnivorous way).

I am not saying I agree with fox hunting; just to claim that a dog wouldn't kill without humans around is somewhat naive.
Actually most house dogs starve or dehydrate so badly they die when left to fend for themselves in the solved.

[AgnesIO]

You should really show some self restraint. If you kill and think later we may end up in a situation like with Lee Harvey Oswald. We never found out anything about how John F. Kennedy was really killed because some idiot decided to take the law (so-called "justice") into his own hands which just caused more problems than it started.


Actually most house dogs starve or dehydrate so badly they die when left to fend for themselves in the solved.

Or we could end up with Hitler, Theoneste Bagosora and Pol Pot. I'd say if someone had the chance to eliminate any of those before three of the most infamous genocides in history, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Also, you are STILL missing the point. You only get 'house dogs' when you have humans. Remove humans from the equation, and see how dogs behave. What you are describing is the same as having a TRAINED circus elephant, a ZOO elephant or a PRIVATELY OWNED elephant. Evidently they will behave differently when being controlled/tamed by humans. But remove humans from the equation and they will be wild/free; and won't necessarily be quite so loving and tame.

[Joshirin]

I've been hunting before, nothing big, rabbits and other pests and they've always been clean kills and as much as I value all life, I can't help but think taking a rabbits life is nothing in comparison to a humans. 'Traditional' fox hunting or anything with dogs attacking the animal I am against though.

'nothing in comparison to a humans' I know where you're coming from, but I don't agree a humans life is worth more than an animals, and people cutting down forests, killing elephants for their trunks etc should all be killed.

[Kyle]

Human life IS worth more than animal life and I'm sure that if you were faced with either saving a human or saving an animal you would tend to agree.

As for killing dictators and mass murderers you wouldn't have a chance to kill them before they did their killing since their death toll would be zero and you would have no reason to do so. Would you kill someone like hitler after the genocide? Well it's not going to make up for the atrocities already committed so what's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgnesIO]

Human life IS worth more than animal life and I'm sure that if you were faced with either saving a human or saving an animal you would tend to agree.

As for killing dictators and mass murderers you wouldn't have a chance to kill them before they did their killing since their death toll would be zero and you would have no reason to do so. Would you kill someone like hitler after the genocide? Well it's not going to make up for the atrocities already committed so what's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My argument is if it was mid-way (as somebody DID try to do, at least in the case of Hitler) - would it be wrong to kill them? I'd argue no. Also, many people who have committed acts of genocide or have been classed was war criminals (Goering, to name but one) have been sentenced to death - although Goering killed himself before they could hang him...

[Yupt]

If I was free to choose who then yes, if not then no.

[karter]

no. for a billion however....

- - - Updated - - -

i thought and i have decided no, even for a billion

[A]

It's living with the fact that you did it, and that person's family are now suffering with the loss, would not be able to do it personally.