Were the actions of this woman morally justified?

Hiring a mercenary is a little much. She could've hired a detective. It's cheaper, legal, and once the evidence is found the detective can work with the police.

What she did does not fall under murder in self defense. So she'll be in trouble with law.

Other- The police in that story are fucking idiots.

Hmm... tough question. But I guess I'll say yes.

But if you wanted to go with the route for the "not killing option", she would have hired someone to locate this person and find out everything about him and then report all of this info to the police... if they still do nothing, then my opinion of the police is truly higher than it should be.

I don't know, I don't care.

She saved her life, and potentially the lives of others. I see what she did as being correct. Morality is subjective.

I don't think so. She ought to have kept contacting the police until they eventually listened to her.

For all she knew, the harasser could have been a prank caller.

You say this is about the woman's actions, not the contractor's. I say because the woman hired the contractor knowing the contractor's ability and intentions, she is morally responsible for everything he did; the two are bound together. I believe killing a man without a trial is always unjust, and she is as responsible for his murder as the contractor is.

Be careful. Hiring a 'contractor', a good one. Like a ex black water op, costs a lot of money and a lot of times they'll go to the police if they think what ur asking them to do is TOO illegal. I'd have found the fool myself and hog tie him infront of who ever he was threatening and harassing. Then I'd probably cut his tongue out, cauterize it so he doesn't bleed out, and send him on his bastard way. Guarantee u, he will NEVER even look sideways at a woman ever again. Dead men learn no lessons.

Morality is just an illusion created by humans to prevent chaos. It has no physical form and thus only relies on influential lies.

We have some sick ideas that place the value of a crazy sadistic stalker on the same level as a decent law-abiding person.

Under our idiotic laws if a person acts in self-defense and ends up killing their attacker, they end up going to jail.

I think we need a revolution in legal thinking and stop treating scumbags as if their life matters as much as the rest of us.

When I was young I made the foolish mistake of hanging out with kids who I thought were 'cool' but they turned out to be petty criminals.

I can tell you from first-hand experience, these people have no hearts, they're sadistic, lack empathy and are dangerous. Fortunately I wised up quick and stopped hanging around with the bad crowd.

Obviously not all of them are 'evil', but I think especially violent offenders need to locked up for good or heavily monitored their whole life. A good person's life is more valuable to society than a criminal type. Time to start breeding out the evil people.

In response to this story, if this is accurate, then I support her actions-the world is better off without stalkers and serial killers. If in reality it was a cover for killing an innocent man then of course I don't support it.

Should have not killed the man, should have turned him into the police.

When she hired him, she didn't know he may have raped or murdered anyone. Threatening someone does not justify murdering them.

lots of thrillers are built on this premise and they are frustrating viewing, she goes back and back and the cops sit around eating donuts joking and ignoring , a hired gun sounds dangerous when a smacking down a dark lane would suffice (and cheaper)

She did what she thought she had to do. I don't blame her or the hitman.

1. She had no choice to take her own action as the police would not listen which leads to:
2. Therefore she had to higher a contractor or a detective.
3. She was morally incorrect to higher the contractor as the contractor could have killed an innocent person whereas the detective would have forced the police to take action.

Overall the woman would not be completely guilty because she had to take her own steps as the police would not listen. She could have reported the police but there is then the question that the police could have been in trouble and in turn caused more trouble for her.

There are so many problems arising from this kind of scenario but personally I think the woman was morally correct in the end as the suspect turned out to be a murderer/rapist so killing the suspect did more good to society than going through the normal proceedings and would have also done economically good to society as well - saving court hearings and if guilty, the money to pay for a death sentence (if legal in the country or state).

I chose amoral because I think that what she did was both parts equal and necessary. We have no idea what may have happened had she told a detective (maybe the police would have blown it off once more) so the contractor may have been needed, who knows..

cliff notes plz

If someone rings you up and threatens you are you just in having them murdered. Hahaha.

Who is this hired hitman? James bond, FBI? Technology to trace calls?

Anyway, to the point. Yes, it was right of her to do so. The hitman deserves a reward. If you ask me, anyone that does the job the law is supposed to do, the it's a bargain.
Luckily for some, there are men willing to do the jobs the law isn't willing to do.