Cannabalism

[Maggot]

This German guy wanted to be killed and eaten...He got his wish.......




German Police Investigate Alleged Cannibal Murder

Germans woke up on Thursday to the traumatic news that a man had killed and eaten another man with the victim's approval. The deed was allegedly recorded on video.


The alleged victim, 42-year-old Bernd Juergen B. from Berlin


For a day at least, Germans may have forgotten about their economic woes as the country found itself hitting the headlines over an altogether more frightening story.

Police have arrested a man who claims to have killed and eaten a friend and recorded the deed on video, allegedly with the victim's approval. The 41-year-old suspect from the picturesque Hessian town of Rotenburg told police that he met his 42-year-old victim, microchip engineer from Berlin, via the Internet. He said they shared homosexual and cannibalistic leanings.

Police said they found the video along with deep-frozen flesh and skeletal remains when they searched the suspect's flat. The video allegedly shows the suspect and the victim agreeing on the murder. Forensic experts are searching the house and surrounding areas for the remains of other possible victims.

Internet clue

The killing goes back to 2001. Police only stumbled across it after the man placed another ad in the Internet looking for a man willing to allow himself to be killed and eaten.

The last alleged case of cannibalism in Germany dates back to 1995 when a 33-year-old man standing trial for murder and robbery claimed to have eaten parts of his victim, however, his claim was never proven.

Police say the suspect is not mentally disturbed. A spokesman said had that been the case he would have been placed in a psychiatric unit instead of a detention cell.

The man is being held on suspicion of murder which carries a life sentence. Should his story check out, he would only face a charge of so-called murder by demand. A conviction would be punishable by a maximum of five years in prison.

 

[Six Feet Under]

WTF!!??

 

[EventHorizon]

Consenting adults. No harm, no foul (just gross).

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

Consenting adults. No harm, no foul (just gross).

Can you consent to murder?

 

[Centuriator]

Old story.

 

[Maggot]

Can you consent to murder?

I got to thinking about this last evening. If it were in the US then technically, should one not be allowed to his own interpretation of "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? LIke the above said. if they are both consenting then whos business is it? Just more gub'mint interference. Gross to me but to each his own (pursuit of happiness).

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

If it were in the US then technically, should one not be allowed to his own interpretation of "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Technically, it looks like they were pursuing a bit more than happiness, not to include life, and at the altar of liberty.

I don't think "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can be stretched quite that far afield. It's simply not a subjective standard. You can't break the law and then argue that you did it because you had developed your own interpretation of a fundamental principle. The jails the world over are full of people who reason like that.

 

[Maggot]

Technically, it looks like they were pursuing a bit more than happiness, not to include life, and at the altar of liberty.

I don't think "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" can be stretched quite that far afield. It's simply not a subjective standard. You can't break the law and then argue that you did it because you had developed your own interpretation of a fundamental principle. The jails the world over are full of people who reason like that.

But Graham, you missed my fundamental point. I understand that its illegal. My argument is that the laws are contrary to the pursuit of happiness, and therefore wrong. Is smoking cigarettes good for you....nope, but legal. Drinking alcohol...nope but legal. Even 17 states have decided that the laws on cannabis are out of date, and they are slowly changing them. Guns kill people...should we ban guns just because they are repugnant to a portion of the population?

I personally think that, though I may find it personally repugnant, whatever two consenting adults want to do to pursue happiness is their business, and none of mine, yours, or any gub'mint. Or are you the type of zealot who thinks that he should be able to proscribe the rules for others?

 

[Centuriator]

If you have no moral compass beyond what is "legal" that opens the door for all kinds of totalitarian crap.

It is morally WRONG to murder, period. Makes no difference who says it is "legal" or not.

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

But Graham, you missed my fundamental point

Nope: 'really didn't. I was just pointing out how the world is, as opposed to how a minority would like it to be. I can't help it: I'm a realist.

Or are you the type of zealot who thinks that he should be able to proscribe the rules for others?

That's a loaded question. I may be many things, but I am certainly not a zealot or a radical. With regard to proscribing rules for others, we all do it all the time. It's called the society that we live in.

Like I said: I am a realist; or at least enough of one to know that laws against murder are not contrary to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Maggot]

If you have no moral compass beyond what is "legal" that opens the door for all kinds of totalitarian crap.

It is morally WRONG to murder, period. Makes no difference who says it is "legal" or not.

Nope: 'really didn't. I was just pointing out how the world is, as opposed to how a minority would like it to be. I can't help it: I'm a realist.
That's a loaded question. I may be many things, but I am certainly not a zealot or a radical. With regard to proscribing rules for others, we all do it all the time. It's called the society that we live in.

Like I said: I am a realist; or at least enough of one to know that laws against murder are not contrary to the pursuit of happiness.

You are both still missing my fundamental point. Yes we do proscribe things all the time. and often those prescriptions are directly contrary to the right to pursue one's right to happiness. Should suicide be illegal. I disagree with that. It is 'Your Life' and if you want to end it that is your fundamental right. If you want someone else to end it that is your right. As far as moral compass, those are relative to the society you live in. for example, in Spain the age of consent for a female is 13. Im not arguing if that is wise or not, just that it is their law, based on their cultural perceptions.

Realism, is in facing truth, not hiding behind a smokescreen.

 

[Centuriator]

I am not missing your fundamental point. I'm absolutely rejecting it.

You would have made a great Nazi.

Think about it.

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

Should suicide be illegal. I disagree with that. It is 'Your Life' and if you want to end it that is your fundamental right. If you want someone else to end it that is your right. As far as moral compass, those are relative to the society you live in.

If you remove religion from the equation, which you must have done to argue in favor of a right to murder, then your argument fails because there is no equivalence between murder and suicide.

Think about it.

 

[Maggot]

If you remove religion from the equation, which you must have done to argue in favor of a right to murder, then your argument fails because there is no equivalence between murder and suicide.

Think about it.

There is legal murder every day. Its called abortion and capital punishment. Im against both. But I hold that if one chooses to end his or her own life that is their fundamental right. religion has no place in the discussion nor on the Hide.

Another for instance, though I suspect it will be wasted on you closed non realistic mind:

Homosexuality, and same sex marriage...

Personally I find the thought of two men doing each other mildly disgusting and their marrying somewhat ludicrous. But as long as no one else is involved and it is of their own free wills its none of anyone elses business but their own and I support their right to do that even though I find it not for me.

By your stand you clearly are against individual rights guaranteed by the constitution.....

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

There is legal murder every day. Its called abortion and capital punishment. Im against both. But I hold that if one chooses to end his or her own life that is their fundamental right.

Now you are arguing against yourself, so I will leave you and yourself to argue with each other over your own beliefs.

But there's still no such thing as 'legal murder'.

 

[Maggot]

Now you are arguing against yourself, so I will leave you and yourself to argue with each other over your own beliefs.

But there's still no such thing as 'legal murder'.

And I leave you to hide behind your confused smokescreen. Foolish, and ignorant, but I support your right to it.

 

[Centuriator]

What is legal is not necessarily right.

This is a point I feel you are entirely missing.

 

[Graham]

Cannabalism

Maggot,

Not understanding something doesn't make that thing foolish and ignorant. If you trip on the sidewalk, don't get mad at the sidewalk.

 

[EventHorizon]

If you remove religion from the equation, which you must have done to argue in favor of a right to murder, then your argument fails because there is no equivalence between murder and suicide.

Think about it.

Well now, depends on which religion and besides there's plenty of acceptance of murder in most religions as punishment, retribution and even test of one's devotion... Regardless, if one choose that they no longer wish to live and they wish to die by the hand of someone else and they find a willing partner where is the murder? Where exactly is the crime against society and the greater good which is the basis of societal laws in the first place?

Perhaps the deceased had cancer, hated life and he thought the best thing in the world was to die and be disposed of in this way. Where is the equivalence of this scenario to murder where one takes the life of another in a non-consensual manner? There really isn't and so your reject of murder and suicide having equivalence fails on the same premise of lack of equivalence to this scenario and murder as it most commonly occurs.

I would classify this as no different than assisted suicide which is a fundamental denial of human rights where it's illegal. Why should the state have any mandate or control over how I die so long as the method I chose does not hurt anyone else?

 

[EventHorizon]

I am not missing your fundamental point. I'm absolutely rejecting it.

You would have made a great Nazi.

Think about it.

One would do well to follow one's own advice. If you are thinking of euthanasia then there's none of that here. The Nazi's were pro-suicide and assisted-suicide anyway - reference Hitler's own passing.

 

[Maggot]

Well now, depends on which religion and besides there's plenty of acceptance of murder in most religions as punishment, retribution and even test of one's devotion... Regardless, if one choose that they no longer wish to live and they wish to die by the hand of someone else and they find a willing partner where is the murder? Where exactly is the crime against society and the greater good which is the basis of societal laws in the first place?

Perhaps the deceased had cancer, hated life and he thought the best thing in the world was to die and be disposed of in this way. Where is the equivalence of this scenario to murder where one takes the life of another in a non-consensual manner? There really isn't and so your reject of murder and suicide having equivalence fails on the same premise of lack of equivalence to this scenario and murder as it most commonly occurs.

I would classify this as no different than assisted suicide which is a fundamental denial of human rights where it's illegal. Why should the state have any mandate or control over how I die so long as the method I chose does not hurt anyone else?

Exactly whet I was aiming at, EH. Its like apples and oranges. 'Morals' vs 'rights'. The constitution, and plain logic, dictate that we should be free to do as we please so long as no one else is harmed. 'Morals' where ever they are derived from, be that religious belief or societal taboo, would say that you must be forced to toe someone else's belief system/ The Islamic fundamentalism is one prime example....you do as we say or we stone you t death, or cut off your head.

 

[lawofsavage]

I enjoyed this lecture series it seemed on topic: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?" - YouTube

Is the argument here that there is a fundamental right to kill oneself and others if between consenting adults under no duress and legally engage in consensual acts between adults without duress? Or is it that constitutional principles allow this?

But there's still no such thing as 'legal murder'.

Also Graham, this is more of a technical and nuanced point but I'm not sure and wanted your opinion. Would a self-defense killing be considered murder? Obviously a successful self-defense justification defense would preclude criminal liability but would A be considered to have murdered B even though criminal liability was not appropriate when: A kills B in self-defense. Even though a prima facie case can still be made against A where all elements of the crime are proven but A would be deemed to be justified in his murder of B because he did what society would have wanted him to do in killing the attacker instead of being killed by the attacker. Self-Defense is an affirmative defense to murder where the defense admits that the elements of murder have been met but the defendant should be acquitted for other reasons. I'm confused if it would be considered murder or not since all the elements are proven but there is no criminal punishment?

 

[Maggot]

" Is the argument here that there is a fundamental right to kill oneself and others if between consenting adults under no duress and legally engage in consensual acts between adults without duress? Or is it that constitutional principles allow this?"


That seems like two arguments.

1- I would assert that one does have the fundamental right to terminate ones own life and that he has the right as wll to have another do so with out culpability.

2- I think that under the auspice of "are endowed with certain unalienable rights and amongst these are Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" That the constitution should insure ones right to do as they pleas provided no one else is hurt. IE: You should have the right to run your car into a concrete wall as long as you've paid for cleanup , repair to the wall, and funeral expenses." And of course no lein against the car.

 

[lawofsavage]

Yes it was meant to be two questions because there seemed to be disagreement whether the discussion was (1) if it was a basic fundamental right for all people or (2) a right protected under the constitution. Or if the discussion was about both.

(1) Dependent upon your moral framework.

(2) I'm really not sure about two but I would doubt it. Some answers can clearly be wrong but it will partly be dependent on your method of interpreting the constitution and your familiarity with it as a whole. I don't think that just because something is between consenting adults under no duress that the constitution necessarily protects all behavior that falls under that category. For example, treasonous activities. If A is a politician and through the voluntary exchange of information he learns information that would harm the US if sold to a foreign country and he does sell it through a voluntary exchange then I don't think that is protected. Even if you add in the requirement of "actions of consenting adults under no duress where the actions do not harm others" you could change the hypothetical to where the information was dangerous and it was still voluntarily sold but there was no actual harm. This would still be punishable behavior.

 

[Maggot]

RE: Two: But wouldn't selling that info which constitutes treason be an action which is expressly prohibited, whereas Acts solely between individuals falls only under L,L and the PoH?
Sorry, about the delay but Im watching the Iron Bowl.....

and as of this minute, Nick is not a happy coach...Auburn 7-0

 

[lawofsavage]

Nick is definitely an angry hobbit right now.

I thought we were talking about whether it was constitutional to criminally punish someone for an act between consenting adults and in order to criminally punish it must be expressly prohibited or required. Treason may have been a bad example because you could argue around by saying that the information was gained fraudulently because the information was transferred under the understanding that it would be kept confidential and fraud is a type of duress. You could change the hypothetical to create a scenario where A learned the information without fraud perhaps by some accident.

A better example may be the regulation of interstate commerce. If A corp. engages in business with B corp who are domiciled in different states the are voluntary contracting with each other so would it be a restriction of their liberty to regulate that transaction?

My point is that the constitution restricts our liberties in all types of ways through criminal punishment, taxation, regulating interstate commerce, etc….. It's possible to create hypo's where a "voluntary acts between consenting adults" would invoke a restriction of liberty so that would make the constitution logically inconsistent if part of the liberty interest it protected was any "voluntary act between consenting adults". Or it could be the case that not every act between consenting adults is something that is protected.

 

[Maggot]

I think over the course of the game the size of the Alabama line will wear down the Auburn line. those guys look like a bunch of dump trucks.


We've gotten to the point that I think we can just keep trying to divide finer and finer lines and go nowhere. Where I seem to feel most comfortable is, all things being relatively equal, the absolute of the individual ( as long as he is not harming others) should be respected. While I respect everyone's right to navigate by their own moral compass I do not feel that they have the right to demand or force others to navigate in the same manner...again, as long as no one is being harmed 'against their will.' Enjoyed the discussion.

 

[lawofsavage]

I hope so. AU can't get down big either because their offense is so run based it takes them a while to score.

Enjoyed it as well. I do respect a person's ability to choose their own belief system but I also think for a society have a rule of law there must be rules that are enforced on society as a whole even if they contrast with some people's belief system. This allows differences between rational people on issues depending on their belief system. Whether or not a particular belief systems as a whole is rational or whether given a certain belief system a concept is consistent with that system is where I think the center of most discussions like this lie.

 

[usmc02xx]

Can you consent to murder?

if he consented to the killing, is it still murder?

 

[Mark williams]

If that guy wanted to be thanksgiving turkey for his butt buddie, hey , why not?

 

[Switchblade]

damn...
no mention of fava beans or good wine? cretins!