The Burning Question: Are there ever times when a Slayer killing a human would be justifiable?

[Buffy Summers]

In a new feature here on BB, each week we are going to pose a debate question to the board to liven things up a bit. This week's question comes from brinkster130:

Are there ever times when a Slayer would be justified in killing a human?

 

[Blaze]

This is a tricky question. I'm going to say that in the events of a human doing something illegal, killing, raping, torturing, things like that, then the slayer is not justified in trying to pursue her own justice. This is why the legal system is in place.

But (because there's always a but) if a human partakes into demonic activities which for example might result in the death of people, and obviously the police can't be involved because they think black magic is bullocks, than I think in extreme cases the Slayer could be justified in killing a human. But again, it has to be a case of extreme circumstances, where the law can absolutely not be involved and where there is imminent danger. If possible, the slayer should restrict the human and the council should deal with the legal actions.

 

[Lyri]

It's the same as in real life - it's never okay to kill someone. But there are times when it's justifiable. Self-defense, defense of a third party, etc.

I'm not sure if Buffy actually killed any of them (can't remember, really) but the Knights of Byzantium are a perfect example. They were trying to kill Buffy because she was protecting The Key, so she killed to save herself and Dawn and the rest of the Scoobies.

But something like Willow killing Warren? No, there's no justifiable reason for that. At that moment, Willow wasn't in any danger from Warren, he was completely defenseless and she chose to kill him anyway. That is not and will never be okay.

Even if Buffy had killed Andrew in 'Storyteller', despite the circumstances, I don't think I would be able to qualify it or insist that it was the right thing to do.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

It's the same as in real life - it's never okay to kill someone. But there are times when it's justifiable. Self-defense, defense of a third party, etc.

One could argue, or debate, that Buffy's use of deadly force would not be acceptable in any situation when dealing with humans. The fact that she is, for all intensive purposes, a super hero, with super strength, her applying non-deadly force would be enough to deflect the situation. How many times has she, in combat, flung a vampire across a room? Killing a human would be almost too easy for a slayer, and as such, I would have a hard time justifying that action.

That is my position on the debate..
my position outside of the debate is of course it's okay! let her kill whoever she wants.

 

[EVIL UU]

Whenever it fulfils her calling. Look at the job description:

Into every generation a slayer is born: one girl in all the world, a chosen one. She alone will wield the strength and skill to fight the vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness; to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their number. She is the Slayer.

Forces of darkness, that's a pretty broad term. Who says that humans are excluded? Caleb was a human and yet Buffy did not give him a second chance, did she? No, she murdered him and made a joke about it. Or Weirick, threw him into a hyena pit. Anyway, the slayer is not a human being so I don't believe that she should cling to humanocentrism, certainly not in a world with decent demons and not so decent humans.

But something like Willow killing Warren? No, there's no justifiable reason for that. At that moment, Willow wasn't in any danger from Warren, he was completely defenseless and she chose to kill him anyway. That is not and will never be okay.

But something like Willow Buffy killing Warren Caleb? No, there's no justifiable reason for that. At that moment, Willow Buffy wasn't in any danger from Warren Caleb, he was completely defenseless and she chose to kill him anyway. That is not and will never be okay.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

the slayer is not a human being so I don't believe that she should cling to humanocentrism,

Even more of a reason why she should not be allowed to kill human beings. If she is not a human and not clinging to 'humanocentrism' one could argue over time the slayer would lose all value on human life. They would be more like Faith when she was first introduced.

 

[Blaze]

Even more of a reason why she should not be allowed to kill human beings. If she is not a human and not clinging to 'humanocentrism' one could argue over time the slayer would lose all value on human life. They would be more like Faith when she was first introduced.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't think they'd be like Faith. If a slayer was an entity that rid the Earth of anything that was evil (human included) and left everything else to be at peace (including nice demons), the planet would be a pretty sweet place to live.

Anyhow, that's beside the point, Buffy is still human, even with a bit of demon hidden in there, and she's still abiding to the human rules, so she should technically not kill people.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

That wouldn't be such a bad thing. I don't think they'd be like Faith. If a slayer was an entity that rid the Earth of anything that was evil (human included) and left everything else to be at peace (including nice demons), the planet would be a pretty sweet place to live.

But that comes down to a judgement call. Who is to define evil and nice? Speaking strictly in a real world scenario, people that work in abortion clinics are sometimes called evil. People that wear fur are sometimes called evil. Whose to say that what judgement calls a judge, jury and executioner would make on a person when they a- have lost value on human life and b- have super human strength.

That is why the slayer had a watcher and worked within the confines of the law. It is that whole absolute power line.

 

[Blaze]

But that comes down to a judgement call. Who is to define evil and nice? Speaking strictly in a real world scenario, people that work in abortion clinics are sometimes called evil. People that wear fur are sometimes called evil. Whose to say that what judgement calls a judge, jury and executioner would make on a person when they a- have lost value on human life and b- have super human strength.

That is why the slayer had a watcher and worked within the confines of the law. It is that whole absolute power line.

For the series stand point, evil is pretty basic. Someone that tries to end the world, or someone that tries to kill someone in front of Buffy/tries to kill Buffy. I think in both of those cases a point could be made that it's okay to kill someone. Just being devil's advocate here, I don't think it's Buffy's place to kill humans, but it could easily be in different circumstances. And even if Buffy was a demon, it wouldn't mean that she would lose human value. A lot of demons, heck even vampires, on the show are shown to display human values.

The main reason I think that Buffy cannot justify exacting justice on humans is because she is a human herself and therefore is equal to all of us in that sense. She shouldn't kill someone anymore than I should. But if we switch the rules around and she's not human, why should she be restricted to evil demons. Are humans so much more specials than demon that they should have preferential treatment. The human race can be so full of themselves.

 

[The Bronze]

Generally speaking I think a person loses their rights while their violating someone else's. If a person is attacking Buffy, her friends or endangering the world and Buffy kills them I'm fine with that.

I think @EVIL UU is right. The job of the slayer is to try to keep the world spinning and not falling into a he'll dimension or going back to the time of the Old Ones. There are 6 billion or so lives resting on the slayer, if someone has to be killed to protect them then that's the way it has to be.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I think a Slayer has the right to kill a human under the same circumstances anyone else does: in self-defense, or defense of another innocent person, when deadly force is the only option.

But a Slayer should never hunt a human the way she might hunt a vampire or demon. That is the business of the regular authorities... she should alert them and give them whatever useful information she has, then let them take care of it.

 

[white avenger]

The Slayer isn't a policeman, and it isn't her duty to enforce human laws. However, it IS her duty to enforce what could be seen as laws that fall under her own jurisdiction. Whether it is demons, vampires, hellgods, or humans serving or allied with any of those beings, or is in some way using supernatural methods to achieve evil (and there is the hard part, determining the term "evil" as it applies in every individual case, but that really isn't our concern here) goals. If carrying out her duty requires the taking of the lives of humans who fall within that definition, then, yes, the Slayer has the right to take human life. It should be, of course, an absolutely last resort thing.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But the simple fact of the matter is that unlike a peace officer, solider or any other profession in which the use of deadly force is allowed, a slayer does not have to go through the same psychological training in order to achieve that status. If a girl is emotionally unstable or has a moral compass that is off balance, it does not matter as she magically becomes the slayer and thereby is permitted to take human life, according to most answers on the subject.

Granted, we are saying that as long as the human life is 'evil' but again, evil is just perception. Who defines evil? and if her perception of the world is askew whose to say what she would consider evil (and killable) is what society would deem evil. Keep in mind, by saying she is 'allowed' to kill evil humans, we have already given her carte blanche to act outside the norms of society in becoming a vigilante. So then would it really matter how society viewed them as opposed to just how the slayer viewed them.

If society did not perceive the murdered human as evil but simply 'mentally ill' or a 'victim of an oppressive system' would the slayer still be correct in the murder of someone she alone viewed as evil?

 

[EVIL UU]

Who defines evil?

Those with power. At the end of the day that's what the slayer thing is about. Power. Also, moral superiority but that's just another word for power. Biggest problem with the slayer - she has no kill switch. Sorcerers created a golem, gave her power, gave her mission but forgot to put that freaking piece of paper into her mouth. And golems? They work great unless they don't. See Dana, Faith.

 

[CordelliasHeart]

I dont think by DEFAULT A slayers justified in seeking her own justice...

but if she runs into say, the professor who sent Fred to Pylea, then I think its ok for her to go "Even if we get him to confess in open court, odds of us getting him in prison for using black magic to kill these girls are about as good as someones chances of winning publishers clearinghouse.

Then killing him... MAYBE organizing an impromptu vigilante court.

I think, Fred was completely right to want to murder him... MINUTES AFTER her frickin conversation with angel and Guin, her Cell phone tried to pull her into an extradimensional vortex.

 

[brinkster130]

I'm not sure. On one hand it is the slayers duty to rid the world of evil (which some humans can be) but on the other there is a system in place to deal with the crimes that humans commit.

If the slayer comes across someone who is dangerous (violent) and knowingly doesn't kill them is she then responsible for any crimes (murders) this person may commit in the future?

What if Buffy were to ever cross paths with some W&H employees; would she be mortally justified in killing them knowing that they are responsible for many innocent human lives?

 

[CordelliasHeart]

Oh on Wolfram and Hart?

What about... just about Any Murderer, Rapist, Arsonist,Drug Trafficer, who has a Wolfram and Hart Lawyer.

Think Buffy would be contemplating murdering them when they left the court house with an ever so smug look on their face?

 

[Mr Trick]

Yeah salf-defence or some extreme situation where it is almost impossible to tame the human who is threatening the world etc... Of course when she thought she killed Ted (who she thought was human) that was in self-defence and was a complete accident. Also, part of the story of the show is that demons can be just as likeable as humans sometimes more. In that context then why should a human life be more valurable?

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Buffy's first human kill was the zookeeper in "The Pack 1x06". Her justifiable kills would include self-defence against anyone attacking her and people using magic or specialized capabilities to threaten or kill innocent people that the police or legal system would not be able to handle. She trapped Amy's mother forever in a trophy which may be a fate worse than death as a completely justified act of self-defence.

 

[Mr Trick]

Buffy's first human kill was the zookeeper in "The Pack 1x06". Her justifiable kills would include self-defence against anyone attacking her and people using magic or specialized capabilities to threaten or kill innocent people that the police or legal system would not be able to handle. She trapped Amy's mother forever in a trophy which may be a fate worse than death as a completely justified act of self-defence.

Doesn't she try to save the Zookeeper though but he is already too far gone? Amy's mother is an interesting one. Wonder whatever happened to that freaky cat?