jack said:
Are these correct and what do they mean?
1. You guys should have had this guy killed.
2. You guys should have had killed him.
3. You guys should have killed him.
Sentence number two is not correct.
1. You guys should
have had this guy
killed. - This means it was advisable for "you guys" to hire someone to kill "this guy", but "you guys" didn't for some reason. It could also mean that it was a good idea - advisable - for you guys to ask someone to kill "this guy". It doesn't have to mean that "you guys" had to hire someone. "You guys" could have asked someone from within the "organization" to kill "this guy". Someone from within the "organization" would already be on the payroll, so "you guys" wouldn't have had to hire someone to kill "this guy".
3. You guys should
have killed him. - This means that it was advisable, or a good idea, for "you guys" to kill "him", but for some reason "you guys" didn't do it.
2. You guys should
have had killed him. - This is not correct.
to have "someone" do something - Here, "have" is being used as a causative verb. It is used with the past modal form "should have + past participle". In this case the past participle is "had", which is also the verb. The object pronoun "him" should follow "had".
should have
had him killed
Here's another example so that you can compare.
Your car is going to cost more money to fix now. You should have had it checked out as soon as you thought something was wrong.
You should have had it checked out. - correct
You should have had checked it out. - not correct
Here, the object pronoun also has to follow the causative verb "had", which is a past participle following "should have" - should have
had it checked out