Ethical gray area?

This is an action of someone who most likely does not see a moral gray area here. Morality is subjective and often gray within an individual.

I look at how much harm or good my actions cause as a moral guide of sorts. I do not consider actions that are out of my control and so I do not try to predict what others will do and mete out punishment to prevent possible actions. However, if someone is in the act of harming another, I would try to defend the victim.

A very clever question but hardly an ethical one .If there was no chance that the evil could take place you were not in a position to prevent one .If on the other hand you were in a place where there was a girl and such a rape was about to take place then yes ,if to kill is the only way to prevent it

It's ok with me to read that a pedophile got splattered in a car wreck or something, or arrested by the police, but if you do a crime, then you break yourself by doing it. The one thing doesn't wash the other. It just creates a second crime where before there was only one.

It would only be a grey area if you use utilitarian ethics. (Because you can argue the killing results in more good.)

But it would most likely be strictly wrong under deontological ethics, virtue ethics, or divine command ethics.

Sleezy and slimey , they both get what they deserve . little sleeze wants som old balded headed wrinkled up prune . it trip her triger . wouldn't hert if she went ahead and let him trip it . who would care . as for tricks . I think tricksers should also get tricked . if the trickster has a gun . Well live by the gun die by the gun .

Wrong because they weren't going to kill anyone. You could rape them though.

baiting is wrong...

Technically and legally, more wrong, but IDK, close enough. I would not prosecute.