The only case or circumstance in civilized society were one may be justified to take another humanbeings life, is in the case of self defense of ones own life, or in the defense or preservation there of another humanbeings life. There are several factors that must be wieghed by the courts to find if the homicide was justifiable or not.

I think it's relative to each case. I wouldn't condemn someone for murdering someone who happened to murder someone they loved.

Seeing as it hasn't been mentioned but i would have to find it acceptable if a peadophile had ruined your life or your childrens...sorry it has to be said!

If anyone harmed my family, (children, husband, mother sister) i swear to God i would kill them with my bare hands. Im a very protective person and dont believe keeping someone in jail is a good idea, we are funding them, keeping them warm, comfortable etc etc when they did bad things... where is the justice in that?

Murder is intentional killing WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, so the definition you provide in the question is inaccurate. In order for a killing to be murder there must be either intention, planning or recklessness involved. Most other answers seem to be talking about justifiable homicide, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Murder is NEVER justified so it can't be acceptable.

murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder... Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder ------ I can give you one example, right off the top of my head, where I believe 1st degree murder, by that definition, would be acceptable. It is a completely hypothetical situation. If I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt (however this is established), that another Hitler is alive today and, no matter what anyone did, the horrors of WWII were going to be repeated, I would premeditate his murder and carry it out. If I knew a rapist was active, was going to rape again, and he could not be stopped by the law, I would say that murdering (1st degree) him would be OK. Same with pedophiles under the same stipulation I made with the rapist. I would murder, by the dictionary definition of first degree murder, anyone who raped a child of mine or one of my Loves. Of course the Law does not concur. However, the question did not add the stipulation of legal action. It just asks if there is a circumstance where murder is acceptable. I believe that second degree murder, by that definition, is acceptable in cases of self-defense, defending a loved one, defending a child.

In self defense. Murder is acceptable if someone is trying to hurt me or mine for "no" reason. And if they harm children. Both of those are good reasons for me to kill someone.

Killing can be intentional. The Bible says not to murder, kill has a diferent definition.

The killing of another human being is totally unacceptable under all circumstances.The karma that one receives far outdoes the act of murder.This includes soldiers at war,all the way to killing because one is insane.What one does to another person,as in murder will return back to this person,maybe not in this life but in another.This also includes executioners.

Personally, I feel that the only acceptable circumstances for killing are : on a recognized battle field, in a recognized war, with the killer and killee both being officially recognized combat soldiers of oposing sides. Anything other than that does NOT warrant killing. Breaking fingers, wrists, arms or legs in self defense, poking eyes out, spinal attacks that paralyze ... anything that destroys the attacker's ability to continue attacking is acceptable as long as the wounds inflicted with the destructive defense are not fatal.

Of course it is sometimes acceptable. The world isn't that black an white you know. For instance, I do beleive self defense would be a valid reason, as would protecting others, defending them. If you kill because for some reason you don't have much of a choice in the matter, I do beleive that could also be deemed acceptable. The list really goes on and on.

I am for the death penalty, so I have to believe that killing as sanctioned by the state in a legal execution is acceptable. It is, however, not murder. Black's Law Dictionary defines murder as the UNLAWFUL killing of another whereas execution is defined as the carrying out of some act or course of conduct to its completion. Therefore, it would follow that if someone murders me and is found guilty of murder and is sentenced to death and executed, my murderer has enjoyed the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers, something I was not afforded the luxury of. Following his conviction and sentencing, my murderer can still look forward to an appeals process that will take a minimum of ten years, something else I was not afforded the luxury of. I know it's your question, but it's MY answer!! :p