As of 8-4, Who's A Killer:

[thebog1]

.

[stenochick]

MOD EDIT

[thebog1]

.

[RKryp]

It's silly at best to conflate murdering and killing.

Not all killing is murder.

[thebog1]

.

[RKryp]

killing is an act of murder, whether accidental or purposeful.

Words mean things. That is NOT the way the word is used by most people.

For example, from dictionary.com, the first definition of murder:



1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).


What's the point in comparing, say, Clark killing someone in self-defense or defense of another to Lex, for example, killing someone for no reason other than to further his own interests? By common use of the word, the former would not be murder, the latter would.

[thebog1]

.

[Mr.Magic]

@thebog1

You are wrong about Lois Lane. Lois & Clark killed Ginsu Boy together. She electrowhammied him, while he used his heat vision.

ps: You are wrong about Lana aswell. Morgan Edge's henchman comes immediately to mind. Oh, and it's Teague.

[Hopefulsuicide]

Clark has never killed anyone on the show, and if he had i would have kicked up one hell of a fuss

superman doesn't kill... it's one of the biggest rules... and he doesnt break it, EVER

people have died while fighting Clark but always by accident and never actually by his hand. he has never used a weapon against anyone in order to kill them, he has never hit someone so hard they died, or anything like that. people have fallen into things that killed them or they have died in other accidental ways, but suggesting that makes Clark a murderer is ridiculous

look at season 3 episode extinction. the villain Van is compared to Clark as he killed a meteor freak with a gun, saving Lana in the process. but when watching the episode you understand the difference between what Clark does (stopping them and sometimes they end up dying of their own accord) and what van is doing which is actually murder

also, Lana never murdered genevieve... isobel did

the only people who are murderers on the show are the villains

[Mr.Magic]

@Hopefulsuicide

Clark kills if necessary.

He kills in the comics (Zod & company), he kills on Lois & Clark (Shadowman), he kills on Smallville (episode 4x02), he even kills in the Donnerverse (Zod & company - he took away their powers, making them vulnerable, and didn't save them; afair he even threw Zod into the crevasse).

[Hopefulsuicide]

hmm, good point... :lol:

i guess that's my perception but the rule does get broken your right...

I still don't think Clark has killed anyone on Smallville though

[Atomic girl]

Murder is a subset of kill, to murder someone is to kill them, but to kill someone is not necessarily murder. They are not used interchangeably. Clark has killed beings (human and otherwise), but in my opinion he has not murdered. He has always sought to find some other way of stopping anyone or anything.

Policemen in their normal course of being policemen sometimes have to kill, but they are investigated and if it was determined to be murder they have a consequence, just like anyone else. Killing as required as part of their job, is unfortunate, but necessary. If they have to shoot a sniper to stop him/her from murdering others, then it's just unfortunate all the way around. No policeman (woman) I know wants to shoot or kill anyone, but they carry the gun just in case it comes to that. I am grateful for those who protect us.

[Mr.Magic]

I still don't think Clark has killed anyone on Smallville though

Ginsu Boy exploded. It's pretty graphic, actually. First Lois starts shooting him with the military taser, then Clark joins in with heat vision, BOOM.

[oqllcksmallville]

There is a huge difference between letting death happen ,
and causing murder .
- Clark has not murdered anyone .
let me ask you ;
how are you killing someone , if you just cant stop their cause of death ? = S

[Mr.Magic]

Stop riding the murder train. Just substitute that poor choice of word with kill.

Do you see anything accidental about any of these?

Superman the Movie
Clark could have rounded Non and Ursa up in a split second.
Not preventing their death, after making it possible for them to die, is like not helping a victim of an accident (which is something you get punished for, at least where I live).
Furthermore, like I said, he tossed Zod, which would be at least manslaughter (if Zod was a) human b) a civilian c) not a general fighting a war against CK).

Lois & Clark
Shadowman was allergic to light. Clark used his heatvision to brighten the room (via a chandelier), until the guy just evaporated.

Comics (regular post-crisis series)
An AU Lex asks Superman for help against their Zod. Superman fails, and Zod kills everyone on Earth. As punishment Clark executes them, after exposing them to Gold K.

Smallville
Ginsu Boy's death was caused by the termal stress on his metallic body from Clark's heatvision, combined with the electric current of the gun.

[thebog1]

.

[Bane]

It'd be boring if villains got away all the time. The show puts everyone in realistic positions in which they have to choose the best option. All of the killing done by Clark has made sense because he's choosing what's best for the world. For Lex, it shows him evolving into the psychopath he would eventually become, and everyone else is pretty much self defense.

[thebog1]

.

[Atomic girl]

I think there are people here who equate kill with murder and use interchangeably, I will agree to disagree with you. I see a difference, but I see that some don't.

As far as Clark is concerned with the plant girl, he didn't know any other way of restraining her. And as far as Titan, he also saw no other way. I would call those self-defense for himself and others. My opinion is that innocent people should be protected, and that is what Clark was doing in both those instances. He didn't and still doesn't know how to send people back to the Phantom Zone. He said so himself, and he worried that the only way to control some of the zoners was to kill them. His mother was the one to tell him that the fact that he even worried about the outcome of encounters with them was what separated him from them. I'm not sure I buy into that exactly, but it's closer to what I believe, than calling Clark a murderer.

[Liquid-Prince]

No one actually knows if Ginsu boy died. He exploded into metal but he could easily have put himself back together again. Clark probably just wanted to stop him when Ginsu exploded and fell into the lava. He could still be alive.

[RKryp]

That's very abridged. Let's look at the word 'kill' definied by Dictionary.com:


I bolded and italicized relevant definitions. Murder's in there.


You quoted the definition of kill, not that of murder. The definition of cannibal would include the term eating, but the definition of eat would likely not include "cannibal". That's because all cannibals eat, but not all eaters are cannibals. Likewise all murderers kill, but not all who kill are murderers.

Only one of the bolded parts pertained to murder. Of course one of the many, many in the list uses the word "kill" as a murderer is of necessity a killer. That does not make the two synonyms.


No one's disputing that but it doesn't change the knowledge or the fact that Clark Kent has, in fact, comitted murder/killed individual(s).

Again, here is the problem: you are using the terms as synonyms. Most people don't.

For example:



Mr. Magic:

I agree with the posts you listed. However, it is still murder. Murder = Kill. The difference is the way society choses to interpret it. Murder is seen as being unlawful, unhelpful, uneccessary, unjustified killing. And killing is seen as being helpful, occasionally neccessary and sometimes justified. It is the same thing, one with a good connotation and one with a bad.


You've just shown that you know that murder is NOT a synonym for kill by your own definition. It's NOT the same, as you've stated: "one with a good connotation and one with a bad."

You've basically hidden an assumption... ie that no killing is justified, inside your observation about over 50% of the show's main characters having killed.

Let me pose a hypothetical question:

Suppose Lex finds himself without cash and having lost his wallet, cell phone, etc. As a matter of convenience, he kills someone to obtain the cash in their wallet. He also kills a half dozen bystanders to prevent them from identifying him.

Suppose also that Clark finds Braniac about to press a button that will kill every human on earth, in order to cleanse it for the return of the few surviving Kryptonians in the universe. The only way to stop the death of billions of humans is to kill Braniac. Clark does so.

Are both Lex and Clark guilty? Is there moral equivalence in the actions of each? If not, what terms would you use to describe the killing that each performed in order to distinguish between the two?



As to the point. . . I am just intrigued that more than half (and if I were to list/when I list every main character, it'll probably more than two-thirds) of the main characters have taken a life, regardless of their reason(s).

Now this is, to my mind, a better point for discussion. Should you wish to discuss the distinction, or the lack thereof, between the killings performed by the "good" or "sypathetic" characters of Smallville, and the "bad" characters, that is a worthwhile topic.

I, and I suspect many of my fellow fans of Smallville, understand if Clark has to take actions that result in the death of someone to prevent them from harming others. I do expect him to attempt to avoid killing where reasonably possible, without ascribing blame if it is impossible to both deliver the innocent but preserve the lives of the guilty.

There is, though, a lot of killing in Smallville. I guess that's the way an action show goes. It's a very hazardous place to live, isn't it?

[thebog1]

.

[Hopefulsuicide]

Stop riding the murder train. Just substitute that poor choice of word with kill.

Do you see anything accidental about any of these?



yeah i don't think that Clark was trying to kill him. the shadowman was choking Lois and he knew that he shyed away from light... that it hurt him... he didn't definately know he would die from the light of a chandelier

i feel the need to defend Lois and Clark because i think his Superman is the best, and that is where i got the impression that Superman does not kill. if anyone can think of any other solid examples of Clark killing someone on LnC i'm gonna actually loose faith in Superman... i sort of don't care about the movies or the comics or smallville, because i grew up with LnC and it was a lot more important to me in terms of building my moral code

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----




Incorrect. Clark Kent killed the living, completely sentient plant that escape the phantom zone and was murderoring people. He electrocuted her, knowing it would kill her - Chloe told him as much. So, that's one death on his hands. A sentient being's death. Clark Kent has also killed Brainiac - he was a machine, it can be argued but that won't dismis the fact that Brainiac was a sentient entity. Not an organic one but a sentient one none-the-less. Clark Kent has rules he tries to follow but not ones he goes by in every single situation. That makes two alone. I'm positive that there have been others.

---

Mm. Perhaps but it was still the main character of Lana Lang and Lana Lang was still responsible. Don't forget that she went to Lex Luthor for help to have that matter resolved.

.

Clark kent has killed an alien from the phantom zone and a computer from krypton. yes i will accept that. and he had his moment of dispair about it in combat when he said he didn't know what else to do with the zoners because he didn't know how to send them back, and they were killing people so he had to stop them.

[thebog1]

.

[Mr.Magic]

yeah i don't think that Clark was trying to kill him. the shadowman was choking Lois and he knew that he shyed away from light... that it hurt him... he didn't definately know he would die from the light of a chandelier

i feel the need to defend Lois and Clark because i think his Superman is the best, and that is where i got the impression that Superman does not kill. if anyone can think of any other solid examples of Clark killing someone on LnC i'm gonna actually loose faith in Superman... i sort of don't care about the movies or the comics or smallville, because i grew up with LnC and it was a lot more important to me in terms of building my moral code

I never said Clark wanted to kill anyone, just that he did. Clark also killed The Green Eyed Monster. That doesn't make him less of a hero.
You don't need to defend L&C. It's my favorite show. Well, second favorite. Right after Firefly.

[Hopefulsuicide]

i'm not saying that you are dissing the show or calling him less of a hero, don't get me wrong

but I will find him less of a hero. in fact i will find Buffy a better hero if this is the case, because in the whedonverse she just doesn't kill humans. unless your going to tell me different :lol:

but there is such a theme of killing changing a person, faith does it by accident and she has to deal with serious consequences, Buffy thinks she has killed someone and wants to turn herself in, Angel has to fight for eternity for redemption because of all the lives he took. Buffy kills demons who are hurting humans (see 'that old gang of mine' and angel episode, if you wanna know why i didnt just say she kills demons), but she never kills a human

it's even a big theme in the dark knight... he doesn't want to cross that line because he will become one of them

again it may be just my perception, but i thought Superman was even more strict with this, and i guess i've just found out that he's not

and it's seriously affecting the way i look at him... i think i like him less, and that's saying soooo much because he is my hero...

...maybe not anymore

[Mr.Magic]

If you really want to compare L&C to Buffy, you need to cut Clark some slack.
Superman never killed any humans, and he only kills in self-defense, or to safe someone, if he doesn't have much of a choice.
Maybe he could have tried ripping the godhood mask off Patrick Sullivan, but we'll never know if there was any chance to save him once he put that thing on.
Buffy, on the other hand is a killer. It's what she does. Clark wouldn't need to kill most of the creatures Buffy slays. He could get them into lockup easily.

[thebog1]

.

[Atomic girl]

I repeat - no one is saying all murder/killing is negative. I am saying they are the same action however.I know that you and I have different definitions of kill/murder, but I have to take exception to this. Although all killing is not negative, I believe all murder is negative. That's part of the difference I see between the two terms. I can see your point that Clark is a killer, although I still disagree with the characterization, he doesn't look for ways to kill people. He tries very hard not to kill people. Unfortunately the English language has strange context sometimes. While "killer" (noun) has a negative connotation, "kill" (verb) doesn't necessarily. As someone else pointed out, it seems you do not think killing is justified under any circumstances. While I don't agree with this view, I can respect it.

[thebog1]

.

[Atomic girl]

How could I say that no one is saying that if I was saying that it was all negative, hm? That'd not only be hypocritical and an oxy-moron but it'd just be stupid (of me). No, Atomic girl, I am not saying it's all negative. Some killing is justified and some is not. I am saying, however, that whether it is justified or not, killing/murderoring remains what it is. The action doesn't change, justified or not, understood or not, desired or not. An action is what it is and the people who are left in the action's wake are forced to take from it what they chose to take - what their perspective allows them to take. See a death and a person can think it was justified even if another person doesn't; they can think it was deliberate murder even if another person thinks it was purely accidental.

Don't accuse me of something I haven't directly stated. I don't leave implications in my posts - I always attempt to (and do) say what I mean and mean what I say and if it's ever unclear, I (generally) go back and edit it as needed. That's (most likely) why over 90% of my posts are always edited within 3-5 minutes of first being posted. I strive for clarity so people can't accuse me of this or that unless I have deliberately, purposefully, irrevocably stated it somewhere.
I'm only going to respond to this part of your post because everything else takes the thread too far off-topic. (If you'd like to continue in PMs that's fine, and where it belongs at this point.) You and I (and maybe others) disagree on the definitions of murder and kill. I agree to disagree. I didn't accuse you of anything. I stated that your generalization (see below) did not pertain to me. I do believe that all murder is wrong(negative), whether anyone else agrees with me, your statement was incorrect in its assessment of me. That was my point, nothing else.

I see that you took exception to my quoting someone else's generalization. If that is where I offended you, then I am sorry, it seemed to sum up what you have been saying. If I was wrong, then you have certainly cleared up any confusion on your views, but for my part, I am sorry to "put words in your mouth". It seems we have both made some assumptions here that were not true.

I still see Clark through a different lens than you do, but I see and respect your point, although I have a different take.



I repeat - no one is saying all murderor/killing is negative. I am saying they are the same action however.

[Hopefulsuicide]

If you really want to compare L&C to Buffy, you need to cut Clark some slack.
Superman never killed any humans, and he only kills in self-defense, or to safe someone, if he doesn't have much of a choice.
Maybe he could have tried ripping the godhood mask off Patrick Sullivan, but we'll never know if there was any chance to save him once he put that thing on.
Buffy, on the other hand is a killer. It's what she does. Clark wouldn't need to kill most of the creatures Buffy slays. He could get them into lockup easily.

oh i see. can you give me an example of a demon Buffy has slain that Clark Kent could rehabilitate? Buffy has proven on many occasions that she doesnt just kill demons because they are there. she only kills the ones who attack. she is friends with clem, she watched spike play kitten poker with some demons, and she didnt kill spike because he was harmless.

you have just told me that Superman killed two humans in LnC, shadowman (who was a human who had been in an accident that changed him) and the green eyed guy, who was just an evil man who had a magic mask on

Buffy has never killed a human. she fought like hell to stop willow killing a human who had murdered tara and tried to kill Buffy. it doesn't matter how evil a human is, Buffy doesn't kill them. that's why giles killed Ben, because he knew she couldnt...

if you think Buffy is just a killer, then you really missed the point

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----


True. In fact, in Season 4, that's what Riley Finn's government section did - capture, not kill, the beings.

Not only that but Buffy put her feelings above her duty and didn't slay Angel when she first found out he was a vampire. As a result, they grew closer, he 'lost his soul' and killed - numerous people. In a way, that can be construed as Buffy's fault since she had a duty and didn't carry it out. Superman, however, strives to keep truth and justice at whatever the cost.

Anyways, that's going offtopic, which was originally that Smallville is filled with killers/murderors...

the initiative was an attempt at dealing with demons without killing them. it was a failed attempt. they became the enemy. they tried to manipulate the demons. they tried to change nature. but it's like trying to turn a lion into a vegetarian. it won't happen.

and Buffy not slaying Angel does NOT make her responsible for the deaths he cause as Angelus... that's ridiculous. Superman wouldn't have killed him either anyway, i hope, so your contradicting yourself.

and yeah it is getting a little off topic, but it's still about whether you can call a hero a murderer if they have killed someone/something

----- Added 5 Minutes later -----


You believe that all murder is negative? Ok, let's get an example up on in here...

This is just an example and not an attempt to stir up a political, ethical or moral debate - Anyone responding to this example, please keep that in mind:

World War 2 - The Atomic Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... If even one innocent person was killed due to one of those bombs - just one person who had nothing to do with the war - then that person was murdered. The decision was made - in advance. That would be a plan. The intent was to kill everyone in those two cities - they had tested it and knew that that was what it was going to do. The motive was to stop the war. There's intent. And the follow-through - the bombs were indeed dropped.

That's premeditated murder of at least one innocent person, and countless more. However, it practically ended the war, saving hundreds of thousands of military lives. With that in mind, if the choice had been up to you, would you have committed murder to the 200,000 estimated who died in the bombings to save hundreds of thousands of lives? Does the end justify the means, the means justify the end or should they both be as righteous as humanly possible?

Secondly, I never said it was never justified. If you'll reread the quote you quote, it says:



How could I say that no one is saying that if I was saying that it was all negative, hm? That'd not only be hypocritical and an oxy-moron but it'd just be stupid (of me). No, Atomic girl, I am not saying it's all negative. Some killing is justified and some is not. I am saying, however, that whether it is justified or not, killing/murderoring remains what it is. The action doesn't change, justified or not, understood or not, desired or not. An action is what it is and the people who are left in the action's wake are forced to take from it what they chose to take - what their perspective allows them to take. See a death and a person can think it was justified even if another person doesn't; they can think it was deliberate murder even if another person thinks it was purely accidental.

Don't accuse me of something I haven't directly stated. I don't leave implications in my posts - I always attempt to (and do) say what I mean and mean what I say and if it's ever unclear, I (generally) go back and edit it as needed. That's (most likely) why over 90% of my posts are always edited within 3-5 minutes of first being posted. I strive for clarity so people can't accuse me of this or that unless I have deliberately, purposefully, irrevocably stated it somewhere.

Another thing to think on, as a last thought: Euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia). That's murder - it's considered 'mercy killing'. There are numerous people all over the world, and the internet, that will back-up euthanasia. Mercy-killing is murder, according to the law - any law, almost, in almost every country (I say 'almost' because for all I know, there might be a single country somewhere that might have some law that permits it in some kind of circumstance). So, according to the people who believe in that, that kind of murder is positive as well, since it's assisting the person that's being euthanized. (Note: My personal opinion on euthanasia will not be stated. It is not a personal issue and therefore my personal opinion will not further discussion in this thread).

when you step on a bug, does that make you a murderer? at what point does killing something avoid your definition of murder?

----- Added 10 Minutes later -----

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission.

that's the wikipedia definition, which pretty much sums up how i feel about the distinction between murder and killing

[thebog1]

.

[Mr.Magic]

oh i see. can you give me an example of a demon Buffy has slain that Clark Kent could rehabilitate?

Clark doesn't rehabilitate. He hands them over to the authorities, who are then responsible for them. Most villains are residents of Stryker's Island, from where they escape regularily (the real reason why the DC-heroes don't kill anymore - recycling).

He killed the shadow dude, because he a) didn't have a way to detain him b) was in a hurry c) is a BDA (the storytelling relies on it). Same goes for the mask entity. Clark was just reacting, pitting force against force.

[thebog1]

.

[kryptonian13]

I really don't mind if/when SUPERHEROES kill/murder VILLAINS to PROTECT or SAVE other peoples lives, as long as they absolutely had no other choice.

----- Added 3 Minutes later -----

but yeah moving on.......yeah i had noticed that all the people with initials L.L are on the killer/murderer list

[Hopefulsuicide]

Clark doesn't rehabilitate. He hands them over to the authorities, who are then responsible for them. Most villains are residents of Stryker's Island, from where they escape regularily (the real reason why the DC-heroes don't kill anymore - recycling).

He killed the shadow dude, because he a) didn't have a way to detain him b) was in a hurry c) is a BDA (the storytelling relies on it). Same goes for the mask entity. Clark was just reacting, pitting force against force.

but the point of the best heroes is that they don't just react. anybody can save lives by killing someone. Lionel shot a thug to save everyone once... that doesn't make him a hero. two things in my mind make Clark Kent a hero. 1. that he does everything in his power to not kill anyone or anything 2. that when he does he feels more guilt than anyone else in the world would ever feel for it, because he has such respect for life

yeah, lots of the characters have been involved in villains deaths, but they all felt guilt about it. and it's all about the grey. i don't think it has a negative effect on the show, but the guilt clark feels each time someone dies will lead to him always wanting to find another way

[RKryp]

I'm only going to respond to this part of your post because everything else takes the thread too far off-topic. (If you'd like to continue in PMs that's fine, and where it belongs at this point.) You and I (and maybe others) disagree on the definitions of murder and kill. I agree to disagree.

Yes, I see now that thebog1 is just using the term murder differently than most of us. Most use the term like the definition quoted below:



Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission.

that's the wikipedia definition, which pretty much sums up how i feel about the distinction between murder and killing

From what thebog1 says, though I now see that he is drawing the same distinction that most of us do between killing that is justifiable and that which is not, just using terms in ways that most of us would not agree with.

As for the original list, I'm pretty sure that Davis Bloom will most to the "has killed" list pretty soon. I was surprised that Jason Teague had not murdered, as he certainly seemed willing to, but I can't recall if he did. I didn't see Jonathan and Martha Kent listed, and I don't think either killed that I can recall. If we go back some seasons, I'm not sure that Whitney killed anyone, unless it was in war. I guess it depends on how far you want to go back and how minor of a character you want to consider.

As for Clark, he also killed Wes (the super soldier), with his heat vision as I recall. He did not intend to, but was trying to defeat Wes and save Lois. The death was unintentional, and I felt that Clark was justified in using the heat vision in an attempt to locate and stop an formidable enemy who could become invisible, and was a threat to the innocent.