"…, a philosopher might consider whether such dangerous obsessions should not be guarded against by judicial homicide before the shooting starts." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The phrase "a philosopher might consider" is a way for the author to introduce a "philosophical question", i.e. a "big" question about life, human existence, morality, the universe and creation, etc. A philosophical question is posed to stimulate discussion, and different philosophers (such as you and me -- everyone is a philosopher to some degree) can have differing opinions on any particular question. The question being posed here: Is it ever acceptable to intentionally take a human life in order to save another human life? What do you think? Actually, it has happened (arguably) everyday since humans have walked the earth. Would you kill that man who is threatening to steal your baby, if that was the only way to stop him? Of course -- what parent wouldn't? The American military sends drone missiles to kill a group of terrorists in their camp, because those terrorists will undoubtedly kill dozens, maybe hundreds, of innocent citizens if left unchecked. Justified? But what if that missile also killed an innocent family that lived nearby the terrorist camp. Is that now too high a price to pay for possibly saving hundreds of lives in the future? The answer may be obvious to you, but there are surely others who would argue against your point of view. So in the statement you are asking about, the author might be looking at a situation that occurs with frightening regularity in the U.S. -- multiple killings by a single deranged or emotionally disturbed person, one with "dangerous obsessions". If a team of doctors and psychiatrists could testify that a certain person was incurably homicidal, would the "judicial" system (courts, judges, juries) be justified in executing that person -- that is, commit "judicial homicide" BEFORE the psychopathic killer can go out and murder innocent people. In world politics, this is called a "preemptive" (pronounced "pree - emp - tiv") strike. The U.S. missile discussed above is an example. If Israel does decide to bomb sites in Iran that are believed to be developing nuclear weapons, even at the cost of lives on the ground at those sites, that would be a preemptive strike. If you were on the jury judging the person with "dangerous obsessions", what would would YOU say?

I have a hard time understanding the logic behind it. Usually when the logic is that convoluted it is not worth the trouble to try to understand, but I will make an exception here. I think it means that maybe someone should study whether or not a person who is planning a mass shooting should be judged to be someone who should be shot before they shoot others.

The writer is opening a discussion about - but without openly advocating for (with good reason!) - whether it would be moral for society to preemptively execute people that might commit violence in the future. I suggest that people who would propose such an unjust idea should be the first ones subjected to such penalty (myself excepted, of course).

Homicide means act of kiiling someone

Judicial should not reveal that the homicide is going to place to a particular person or at particular situation as per the Law before the shooting starts