Jigsaw the murderer?

Hi everyone, I dont go on the forum too often and Im sure this has been debated incessantly amongst alot of you guys so apologies if this is a stale retread but I'd like to know what you think...

I was watching SawIII last nite and you know that speech/rant Amanda gives towards the movie's climax about how Jigsaw's ideology is ** and what he does is no better than murder? Well, I must say, I agree completely with Amanda! Eric's argument about putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to pull the trigger is a chorus of Amanda's ravings too. So my question to everyone here is do they personally see Jigsaw as a serial killer or a 'psuedo scientist'/'quantitative observer or whatever?

My feeling on the discussion is that Jigsaw IS a serial killer (I know Leigh Whannel adamantly disagrees with this) and that Detective Mathews is spot on in what he said in Saw II. To offer a degree of structure to this argument (forgive me if this is a wee bit boring lol) I think we should look at the legal system in virtually any nation in the free world. What Jigsaw does is regarded as (at the very least) attempted murder. Furthermore some of his tests are virtually unwinnable for the victims. Like how on earth could you argue that Timmothy Young (the guy who ran over Jeff's son and found himself int he crucifix trap) was not a murder victim? Jigsaw might point out that it 'wasnt his test...' but this only goes to further my point: Jigsaw took life in this instance (and in many others too) in accordance with a deemed 'higher purpose' or higher priority- this is very much in keeping with the thinking process of a psychopath.

So thats my argument, I'd like to know what you guys think.

Love
Billy Bulger

It sounds to me like you would like to read this thread.

http://www.officialsawforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1983

Thanks for the link! xx

Jigsaw isn't a murderer. ^_^

jigsaw isnt a murderer

That was an awesome legal thread Smile

Although I don't think I'd refer to John as a "serial killer" - to me, the only thing the victims had in common was that they didn't value their lives enough...would that be enough to call him a "serial" killer under the law?

One thing I didn't see mentioned in the other thread had to do with Tapp and Sing - Kramer cut Tapp across the throat, intending to kill him, so that would at the least be attempted murder against a police officer.

Sing didn't see the tripwire amongst the cobwebs, and WAS killed (I assume) in the line of duty, which would make Kramer guilty of being a cop killer. Doesn't that usually mean an automatic death penalty or life imprisonment?

I see John as a broken man.
I also see John as something society NEEDS.
I feel it's wrong, but right also...

Jigsaw's a killer. Yes, some people come out of his Traps alive, and with a better out-look on life, but that doesn't justify any of what he does. He's a great movie character and an interesting character study, but in real life he would be just another hypocritical killer who needs a bullet to the head.

john is a vigilante, and does society a big huge favor, he's not a muderer.

Yes, he is a murderer, but every victim had a chance! Matthews speech said forcing someone to pull a trigger is murder, but Jigsaw didn't force them to kill themselves, they all had a chance to escape, either by causing themselves physical and or emotinal pain. Also the thing with Tap you mentioned, I really dont get why Jigsaw slashed his throat if it goes against his morals.

He didn't really have a choice. His work just began and without slashing his throat there would only be like one SAW movie lol. But yeah by slashing Tapp's throat he contradicted his whole mantra and message.