Hypothetical Question: 9/11 and morality based.
 

Let's say someone goes to jail for brutally killing Mohammad Atta, One of the leaders of the September 11th attack, in January 2001. Then the terrorist plot goes through, everything happens as it did, minus Atta's participation.

A newspaper reveals that Atta was supposed to be one of the hijackers on a flight and they run the story of this guy who killed him It becomes national news, very widespread and some think of him almost as a hero for what he did, killing a hijacker before he could kill us.

Would YOU support pardoning him? Do you think the country should? Would he deserve to be well liked for what he did?

What if the scenarios where he killed Atta were in:
A) A bar fight where they had a "disagreement"
B) Hit and run or Drunk Driving
C) A straight murder or robbery/homicide
D) Killed him because he told part of his plan while drunk
E) Killed him for wishing harm to americans and "wishing he could kill many americans"

I don't think it matters, you could murder Hitler before he assumed power, that would still make you a murderer.

Hey, I personally agree. I voted for not at all. I just want to see if anyone here thinks differently.

Even if Atta told this guy about the 9-11 plot, the guy should have just got on the phone and told the cops about it.
Also he could easily lie about that and maybe he just killed Atta because he was a pyscho.
Hey, I just realized this is like Taxi Driver.

Hey, if that didn't happen, we never would have gotten the game Red Alert, and Red Alert 2.

I figure if the only way the guy had to stop him from committing the attacks was to use deadly force then he should be pardoned. Otherwise he should have called in the feds.

Well, remember this is a full 8 months before Sept 11.

I would have to agree that although he might have stopped someone from doing something bad, he still killed someone. Unless there was a bounty on the guys head before hand, he is still killing someone, regardless of the incident. imho

We're a law based society. Civilians shouldnt take the law (especially commit murder) into their own hands. What would happen if every billy bob with a gun went around policing?

Murder is murder. While there is a place for mercy in times of extreme mental anguish there is no place for vigilantism in civil society. He should face respective charges for the different situations based on the different scenerios from manslaughter all the way up to murder 1.

Interestingly, I think this question is phrased towards punishing this man because of the vigilante aspect of it being solely in our hands. I want to know how everyone here would vote as a member of a jury under each circumstance.

For my part:
A) guilty of murder
b) guily of motor vehicle homocide
c) guilty of murder/robbery
d) guily of murder 2 possibly manslaughter because of the reaction to extreme news and drunken nature of the crime
e) guilty of murder 2 but with extenuating circumstance because of very severe emotional trauma from 9/11 and the brash nature of the crime. Counseling and reduced sentence.

What I think is very important here is that in judging the crime or the pardon is that in law you shouldn't take into account who the person is or his/her past that isn't relevent to motive. In some cases his involvement in 9/11 plays in (d & e) where as in the rest it doesn't so should be disregarded.

EDIT: Sorry if this ends up hijacking the thread away from the posters intent, but for me at least this provides a less cut and dry dynamic than simply pardoning the crime.

No, I think your questions are fine.

I was looking to see how many people can retroactively like this guy for what he did. I think some who may vote to let him go would do so because of a feeling of helplessness for what happened and see it as a little bit of fighting back, even though it may or may not have been unintentional.

Bush would cut tax's, reduce the police force and claim everthing is working perfectly.

I wouldn't support his release, he should've worked through the proper channels. Law is law.

Ok We have 5 votes for the top three scenarios. Bar fight, hit and run, and robbery/homicide.

Anyone who voted for those care to explain why you would let this kind of person out just because their victim happened to be plotting against this country?

I think it would be a major failing if the justice system were to let him off.

Perhaps naive but I don't really think that the American public would view him as a hero either, especially not in the top 3 choices. I would hope people would take it as a lucky (morbid) coincidence that some wacko killed another wacko before the latter could carry through his plot.

Unless his life or someone elses life was in Imiment(sp?) danger, there is absolutely no reason for letting him off. 8 months before the attack? there is nothing imenint or immediate about that. While i woulnd't pardon him, i could understand taking a second thought about it if the guy was leaving the country immediately and there wasn't enough time to go throuhg any channels. Killing / restraining him may have been the only way to protect his life. While i would think a little longer about that scenario, no. He absolutely should not be let off the hook.