Which would you pick?

[VeraX]

Say your in a situation where someone is about to kill two other people. You can stop this however, by giving me a signal, and I will kill the person who would kill them. You have nothing to do with the killing other than the signal.
However, you don't know who the people are. You could be getting me to kill your mother to save two axe murderers. Or, you could be getting me to kill an axe murderer to save your mother and father.

You don't know who any of the people are, and the above were just examples. They could be anybody.

Would you give me the signal to kill the person who would kill them, or would you let him kill the two others?
This isn't a situation you could walk away from. You have to pick.

(And for the record, I'm not a murderer, nor would I kill in this situation. I was just using me as an example, its not someone you know personally.)

[Bangel]

I'd call the police and go on my merry way.

[Twizzler0171]

I'd call the police and go on my merry way.

Me too. And I'd also make sure I was surrounded by about 50 bodyguards on each side for about a week or so. ^.^'

[VeraX]

Your in the middle of a deserted field without any way of communication out, if your going to be stubborn about it.

[Khristian]

Personally if I had no choice, I would give the signal to the two people to kil the one other.

Even if these two people were killers, maybe after getting their lives saved they may change their ways and become good. I beleive in giving people second chances. Also in any given circumstance like that I would always aim for the decesion that kills less people.

[Flame]

I couldn't decide.

Because technically the person with the gun likely wouldn't care what signal I gave.

And technically, I will never be in a desert with 3 people I don't know/can't tell who they are.

...And I think I just ruined the point of this poll. So honestly? I can't really answer this question.

[Zero!]

Kill that murderer. Hey, it'll either make me a hero or a villian, and either way has it's good sides.

[Medusa]

If the options in the poll are the only options we can choose from (disregarding all other possible actions) then I'd probably have to say kill the killer. To tell you the truth, doing it would probably mess me up because killing people isn't something that I have in my future plans but at least it would be one life (and a malicious person) instead of two (innocent people). Go the defences of Self-Defence and the Defence of Others.

[Urthdigger]

I'd have the murderer killed. It may be a death on my consience, but it's better than the two deaths that would have occured through inaction.

[Combusken BG]

I would have to say the best anwser is to take out all 3 of them.

Why?

Because if you kill the would-be murderer the people you saved might turn on you after saving them and if you let him/her kill them he/she might decide to kill you next.

[Christopher]

Take them all downsteal their wallets I don't know them.

[Silja]

I would propapbly let the two others die, sounds horibble, but I would feel as bad for the both options, which means either way I would not be properly able to live with myself anymore.

[Qanda]

I'll not send out the signal, and just let nature run its course. The murderer, if he really does kill the two other people, would receive his just retribution one day. But since he is has not yet commited the crime, who am I to take his life in the name of preventation? Reminds me of the film Minority Report if you ask me.

[Paul]

I'd let the murderer kill the two people.

[Shifty]

I would give the signal, since a murderer is a merderer no matter who they are.