As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Self-defense in law

2456719

Posts

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    sparkle wrote: »
    So if someone steals your car its the same as them chopping off your legs?

    The difference is material things can be replaced physical well-being oftentimes can't. If someone steals your bigscreen tv you're not going to be stuck in a wheelchair for life but if they shot you you might very well be.

    Your philosophy basically makes a rich person 500 times the human being a poor person is since they have so much more "life" to lose.
    where does it stop? your bigscreen? the money in your wallet? your wedding ring? the watch your recently deceased father gave you on graduation day? At what point do you become a slave to violent thugs?

    And it had nothing to do with the amount. If a mugger threatened my life over $2.00 in my pocket, I would rather kill him if possible than give up the two bucks. I feel the same about anyone that breaks into the sanctity of one's home where kids might be sleeping, regardless of what they were stealing.

    This would be an example of where I wouldn't consider this self-defense, and the 'defender' should be accused of murder.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    Double post, because Geth agrees with me.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    There's a population of people who are well-studied for injuries sustained when falling from a standing height without any additional force applied to them but gravity: people with epilepsy. About 5% of such injuries are broken or cracked bones - including, but not limited to, skull fractures. Subdural hematomas are uncommon, but can occur, and when they occur further traumatic brain injury is possible.

    On top of that, in a fight, you have the possibility of somebody falling on top of you, adding additional force, or applying additional downward force through a shove or punch, or using leverage to apply kinetic energy to a part of the body in a direction that it doesn't normally bear (like perpendicular to the forearm).

    People break bones during martial arts tournaments due to two people falling on a single bone in a direction that the bone does not normally support.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Pretty much any fight between adults carries the potential for great bodily harm. A single punch can break teeth and jaws, eye orbits, or even kill if it lands just right. Even a shove can cause someone to fall and fracture their skull.

    Not really.

    I'm not sure where you or McDermott are getting you information, but this is a joke. Even at the zenith of his career, when he admitted to trying to kill an opponent in the ring, George Foreman - a person much, much stronger than the average adult - was unable to do so even with direct blows to the head. There are rare circumstances where a direct thrust of force to a person's chest can cause cardiac arrest (this has only ever happened, as far as we know, with baseballs - but it's not much of a stretch to infer that the same thing could happen with a fist or other blunt object).

    Bones aren't fragile. Even bones that have been adapted for limited ablative function, like some rib bones, require a surprising amount of KE to actually break - and the bones in your hand are going to break or crack before they break a jaw bone (you might dislocate a jaw bone, but breaking it by punching it? Not unless you're punching an infant).

    Simply falling from standing will never, ever kill a human being, unless you fall onto a sharp object. Even when you're talking about the few extreme examples where 800~ pound people have fallen over in their homes, they didn't die on impact.

    I don't know where you're getting your information, but this is patently untrue. Falling down and hitting your head can and has killed people, though yes, a solid object (stairs, a curb, etc) can increase this risk significantly.

    Human beings are simultaneously incredibly resilient and incredibly fragile. A woman that is friends with my mother survived being shot at close range 9 times by her ex husband. A courier at work suffered a heart attack (given our proximity literally next to a hospital, this was reported to have been survivable) but struck his head on a step when he collapsed, which led to his death. People have fallen from simply staggering heights without injury, one of my friends managed to tear his achilles tendon walking up a set of 4 stairs, put him on disability leave for a full year.

    The likelihood that a single punch will permanently cripple or kill someone may be incredible small, but across millions of confrontations per year world wide, there are terribly tragic incidents. They may be rare, they may not be intentional, but it is not unreasonable to consider any threat of bodily harm potentially serious, especially because it's not like it's agreed to in advance. By the time it IS serious, it's too late.

    I was walking home a month ago, and while crossing the street, I saw a guy yelling at some people and then haul off and hit a guy in the back of the head, seemingly unprovoked. I expressed my displeasure with his behaviour, and in response he punched me in the face. This action knocked my glasses off, and tore the skin above my nose significantly enough for 3 stitches. We squared off and I asked him if he really wanted to do this (as I seemed to have the advantages of a solid decade and at least half a foot), and as the light changed he backed down.

    But one punch, in a fraction of a second, left a permanent mark on me. Had his aim been different, maybe I would've just had a black eye, maybe it would've gone much, much worse.

    Do I feel this is justification for declaring every slight and drunken punch a potential lethal attack and deserving of being treated as such? No. But let's not minimize that even if rare, fights can have lasting or permanent repercussions, and once it has happened it's too late to object. Luckily the scar isn't terribly off putting (or so I'm told), but it definitely taught me a lesson.

    Take your glasses off before calling assholes out on their behaviour.

    I'm told this may not necessarily be the lesson I should be taking from this, but fuck it, I've had a long and illustrious third of a century calling out assholes for being assholes, it ain't gonna stop anytime soon.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    I cracked my elbow i. Two places from a nonviolent shove to pavement while playing basketball. Bones are funny they're very strong until they get hit in just the wrong way

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

    I've had my nose broken with a single kick. I've broken a nose with a punch.

    People die sometimes from just one adult hit.

    Sometimes they go 'Ow', sometimes terrible things happen.

    If real life was D&D, you would be rolling 1d100 for damage on most attacks. That's what games don't teach you.

    Not according to the data collected by the FBI. According to them. guns account for more fatalities by a factor of up to 10:1 in some states.

    But yeah, fists are just so dangerous, causing about 6~ percent of all homicides in the U.S. (compared to firearms at 67~ percent).

    With Love and Courage
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited July 2013
    The Ender wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

    I've had my nose broken with a single kick. I've broken a nose with a punch.

    People die sometimes from just one adult hit.

    Sometimes they go 'Ow', sometimes terrible things happen.

    If real life was D&D, you would be rolling 1d100 for damage on most attacks. That's what games don't teach you.

    Not according to the data collected by the FBI. According to them. guns account for more fatalities by a factor of up to 10:1 in some states.

    But yeah, fists are just so dangerous, causing about 6~ percent of all homicides in the U.S. (compared to firearms at 67~ percent).

    this is a really odd response. i don't think that anyone claimed fistfights are more dangerous than gunfights- just that fistfights can seriously hurt someone and sometimes even kill them. i'm not sure what you're being snide about. you were totally wrong about how a punch to the mouth seriously hurting someone is some freak anomaly.

    Organichu on
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

    I've had my nose broken with a single kick. I've broken a nose with a punch.

    People die sometimes from just one adult hit.

    Sometimes they go 'Ow', sometimes terrible things happen.

    If real life was D&D, you would be rolling 1d100 for damage on most attacks. That's what games don't teach you.

    Not according to the data collected by the FBI. According to them. guns account for more fatalities by a factor of up to 10:1 in some states.

    But yeah, fists are just so dangerous, causing about 6~ percent of all homicides in the U.S. (compared to firearms at 67~ percent).

    The fact that guns are really, really, spectacularly good at killing people doesn't make fistfights any less dangerous.

    Just like the fact that drowning kills more children than guns doesn't make guns themselves any less dangerous.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

    I've had my nose broken with a single kick. I've broken a nose with a punch.

    People die sometimes from just one adult hit.

    Sometimes they go 'Ow', sometimes terrible things happen.

    If real life was D&D, you would be rolling 1d100 for damage on most attacks. That's what games don't teach you.

    Not according to the data collected by the FBI. According to them. guns account for more fatalities by a factor of up to 10:1 in some states.

    But yeah, fists are just so dangerous, causing about 6~ percent of all homicides in the U.S. (compared to firearms at 67~ percent).

    poshniallo did not compare firearms to unarmed fights at all. You're using that comparison speciously as a form of goalpost-moving.

    mcdermott's original statement:
    "Proportionality" is not taken, even in those nations, to mean like force or like weapon. It doesn't mean you cannot use a knife against fists, or a gun against a knife, or a gun against fists. It is proportionality in harm. So if, with fists, they are posing great bodily harm, great bodily harm is considered proportional to death, and thus you can use deadly force...if reasonably necessary.

    We know that in a fistfight, you can suffer broken bones and traumatic head injury.

    You tried to argue that an unarmed fight cannot result in great bodily harm at all, a statement on which multiple interlocutors rightly called bullshit.

    Now, if you wish to argue that the risk great bodily harm should not justify a deadly response - effectively arguing that 'great bodily harm should not be considered proportional to death' - that's a fine argument, and there's room for it here.

    But such an argument will not benefit from continued adherence to an empirically false claim that fistfights do not result in great bodily harm.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Stupid phone.

    Anyway Ender, broken maxiofacial bone, tooth socket and displaced tooth. I can scan the medical and dental bills if you want to see. One punch I took.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    One thing I'd buy about more fistfights is they're far easier to retreat from than a gun

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    this is a really odd response. i don't think that anyone claimed fistfights are more dangerous than gunfights- just that fistfights can seriously hurt someone and sometimes even kill them. i'm not sure what you're being snide about. you were totally wrong about how a punch to the mouth seriously hurting someone is some freak anomaly.
    We know that in a fistfight, you can suffer broken bones and traumatic head injury.

    You tried to argue that an unarmed fight cannot result in great bodily harm at all, a statement on which multiple interlocutors rightly called bullshit.

    Now, if you wish to argue that the risk great bodily harm should not justify a deadly response - effectively arguing that 'great bodily harm should not be considered proportional to death' - that's a fine argument, and there's room for it here.

    But such an argument will not benefit from continued adherence to an empirically false claim that fistfights do not result in great bodily harm.

    I'm calling a spade a spade; this argument in favor of fists being OH SO DANGEROUS is only ever used by gun advocates and self-defense advocates so they can justify self-armament and lethal retaliation. "That guy HIT ME! He's TRYING TO KILL ME! Good thing I have my gun!"

    I got jumped and mugged, and repeatedly kicked while on the ground. No actual damage was done (some trivial bruising). So now it's my anecdote vs yours.


    Americans in particular talk about hand to hand combat like people are made of styrofoam, like if you hit someone in the head brain matter will go flying in all directions. In my opinion, this is a plain effort to justify a culture of armament - since everybody, when you think about it with your bias goggles firmly in place, is already armed with such deadly implements as feet and hands.

    With Love and Courage
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    There's a population of people who are well-studied for injuries sustained when falling from a standing height without any additional force applied to them but gravity: people with epilepsy. About 5% of such injuries are broken or cracked bones - including, but not limited to, skull fractures. Subdural hematomas are uncommon, but can occur, and when they occur further traumatic brain injury is possible.

    On top of that, in a fight, you have the possibility of somebody falling on top of you, adding additional force, or applying additional downward force through a shove or punch, or using leverage to apply kinetic energy to a part of the body in a direction that it doesn't normally bear (like perpendicular to the forearm).

    People break bones during martial arts tournaments due to two people falling on a single bone in a direction that the bone does not normally support.

    How is someone having a seizure involving involuntarily spasms fall under the criteria of, "without any additional force applied to them but gravity,"

    Their own muscle work doesn't count for some reason?

    With Love and Courage
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    i don't think feral carries a gun. i know i don't. nexus doesn't. i think you're projecting a little bit. just because you see this argument online by some people you don't like doesn't invalidate it.

    anyway, this would only be anecdote v anecdote if the question was "do fistfights usually result in serious harm" and we disagreed. in fact, the disagreement was with you saying that it virtually cannot happen (with just punches) and demanded to see a citation of it having ever happened even once. that's the idea we're regarding as specious.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Fuck dude, nobody is saying every fight is like a Bruce Lee movie. Or that fists are scarier than guns.

    Just that people can and do suffer serious injuries from fights, and its not crazy to fear GBH in a physical attack.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.
    When it comes to unleashing force quickly, Bir and her colleagues investigated boxers and found they could generate up to 5,000 newtons of force with a punch, more than that exerted down by a half-ton on Earth's surface.

    When it comes to kicks, "they can obviously generate more force, since there's more body mass behind it," Bir said. After looking at kicks from several different fighting styles, they found that experts could generate up to 9,000 newtons with them, equal to roughly a ton of force.

    A quick, sharp blow that delivers some 3,300 newtons of force has a 25 percent chance of cracking an average person's rib, she said. It takes more force to fracture the femur, Bir noted — maybe some 4,000 newtons — since that long thighbone is meant to support the body.

    "That doesn't means that below those values you won't have a fracture or above them you will," Bir said. The amount of damage a blow inflicts also varies due to factors such as the amount of muscle or fat covering a bone and the angle at which the blow lands, as well as the age and health of a person, which can affect bone strength.

    Although it makes sense that a massive fighter can unleash more powerful blows than a lightweight, "it's also about how much of the mass of your body you can recruit," Bir said. "You see some little guys hit with a lot of force because they know how to recruit their mass."

    - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/6040-brute-force-humans-punch.html#sthash.oY2COVTk.dpuf

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    seizure victims are not generally accelerating their own descent toward the ground, no, and the stereotypical massive twitching that is our popular conception of a seizure is far from ubiquitous in epileptics.

    anyway if you want some examples of people being killed in fistfights, this article provides several: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/05/george_zimmerman_claims_he_was_fighting_for_his_life_how_deadly_is_an_unarmed_teenager_.html

    (yes yes, trayvon martin, but that part isn't really relevant to this thread)

    but the degree of harm that it's possible to cause with a standing punch isn't really the issue; bigger concerns include "what's going to happen if this guy knocks me to the ground," "what if he has a weapon," "what if there are more attackers that I don't immediately see" etc.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • ComradebotComradebot Lord of Dinosaurs Houston, TXRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    There's a population of people who are well-studied for injuries sustained when falling from a standing height without any additional force applied to them but gravity: people with epilepsy. About 5% of such injuries are broken or cracked bones - including, but not limited to, skull fractures. Subdural hematomas are uncommon, but can occur, and when they occur further traumatic brain injury is possible.

    On top of that, in a fight, you have the possibility of somebody falling on top of you, adding additional force, or applying additional downward force through a shove or punch, or using leverage to apply kinetic energy to a part of the body in a direction that it doesn't normally bear (like perpendicular to the forearm).

    People break bones during martial arts tournaments due to two people falling on a single bone in a direction that the bone does not normally support.

    How is someone having a seizure involving involuntarily spasms fall under the criteria of, "without any additional force applied to them but gravity,"

    Their own muscle work doesn't count for some reason?

    Are you serious? Like, with any of your posts?

    I know a guy who got punched ONCE, and had to be hospitalized because his brain was swelling, his skull was fractured, and brain fluid was leaking out of his nose. Yeah, George Foreman never killed anyone. But keep in mind that every single man he fought in the ring was also a trained fighter, just as capable of knowing how to properly take a punch as to deliver one, not to mention were wearing mouthguards (which actually help absorb a surprising amount of shock to the head).

    But this post? Last I checked, a seizure doesn't typically cause you to fling yourself at the ground. You spasm, your legs stop supporting you, and you fall. Flinging yourself downwards usually requires a more coordinated movement than an epileptic seizure will allow.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    anyway the simple fact that one in every 20 or so homicides in the U.S. are caused with fists should put the lie to the idea that a fist cannot be enough of a threat to justify deadly force in retaliation.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'm calling a spade a spade;
    No you're not, you're spazzing out for no particular reason - the whole thing you're throwing this bizarre shitfit over was the explanation that yes, it is in fact possible to severely hurt someone without carrying a weapon.
    The Ender wrote: »
    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.
    The Ender wrote: »
    But yeah, fists are just so dangerous, causing about 6~ percent of all homicides in the U.S. (compared to firearms at 67~ percent).

    Anyway, since that's all that needs to be said about that, I'm sure we're all glad that that's the last you're going to say on this topic.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.
    ...
    Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

    Sec. 20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future harm
    ...
    Sec. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power.

    Self-defense is a temporary exception because you could die and have no recourse. Using violence on another is a violation of that person's fundamental rights outside that narrow exception. You don't get to shoot someone because you're worried you might not get your property back.

    I love Locke as much as the next guy, but remember he also said that your property is an extension of your person because you put your labor into it (this is the foundation of my own views on strong property rights). He also said that you could enslave someone if their life was otherwise forfeit to you. . .

    I - He didn't say property was an extension of your person. He said self-ownership and self-ownership of labor is the basis of exclusive ownership of anything else in a state of nature (aka property rights) which is mitigated and regulated by entering into a civil society.
    II - Irrelevant. The point in question is whether there is the possibility of reparation. You can get your property back, you can't get your life back. Once you aren't in mortal peril, you don't have the justification.
    III - That's an inaccurate reading regarding slavery. He said that in order to truly make yourself a slave you have to have the power to legitimately forfeit your own life. Since Locke had previously rejected the legitimacy of taking a life including your own he is building on this to say that even voluntarily entering into slavery is not permissible. The wording is complex but:
    This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.
    So he can't (legitimately) take away the life of another or his own life. And the "legislature" lacks the power to violate his liberty in such a fashion. The next sentence is where this idea come from:
    Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.
    But he follows it immediate with:
    This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.
    The state of war is basically when shit is bad for Locke.
    Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

    Sect, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave.

    To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

    That is interesting. Thanks for posting it. I haven't read Locke in over a decade, but always find him interesting. That said, the claim that the state cannot have power over life and death is patently false in America, so this is not directly applicable. Beyond that, I disagree that the type of conflicts Locke describes as the state of war should be limited to direct assaults on persons, as I believe (as I mentioned earlier) that my property is an extension of my person, and actually believe that theft is a form of ensalvement. it is my belief that when you steal something I laborer for, you invalidate my choice to labor instead of enjoying leisure, and this forces me to essentially labor for your benefit, and without compensation.

  • Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    I don't see how the reading about slavery is inaccurate.
    Judging from what you've given here, it sounds like he's saying that you can't voluntarily kill yourself or sell yourself into slavery by divine writ.
    Except, if you've entered into a "state of war" and they would've had the right to kill you anyway, then slavery is totally legit by right of conquest.

    I find this to be exceedingly abhorrent.

    Also, the idea that your property is your livelihood makes more sense if you live at ta subsistence level economy. It doesn't really make a lot of sense if the other guy is stealing your TV for example, since that's a luxury, not the means of your continued livelihood. But evidently, entering into even that very small "state of war" is sufficient for the guy to forfeit his life, because he's pissing in the eye of God and Nature, so an example must be made.

    Again, I find that to be just as abhorrent.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    Organichu wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Ender, you don't know what you are talking about. Fights in a ring between comparable fighters wearing gloves are nothig like a real fight. Serious injuries up to and including broken bones happen regularly in real fights between adults.

    Death from a single punch or falling isn't common, but it happens

    I'd like you to cite a single example of one adult punching another adult and breaking any bone at all. Even a rib bone.

    i have had my eye orbital shattered with one punch

    .....um.....cite another. [/goosery]

    Also, Ender, I give you death by single punch. By a teenager, no less. Uncommon, but happens, and you're acting as if it doesn't.

    Also I'll note that nobody is saying that you hit somebody once, and they just drop dead. That referee made it to the hospital. He was conscious for a while. Then he slipped into a coma. Then, a week later, he died.

    As for it taking a "sharp object" to kill somebody from a body-weight fall...um, the world is filled with "sharp objects," which in this context is pretty much any solid protrusion. Curbs, bars, tables, chairs, pretty much anything you can hit on the way down. This can cause anything from significant injury to death (or significant injury leading to eventual death).

    You're being a tremendous goose, and while I enjoy watching somebody look so foolish I have to give you some friendly advice, and tell you to perhaps stop for a bit.


    EDIT: I mean, give me five minutes and I could come back with at least a dozen cases of death from single punches. Google's a hell of a drug. And obviously there are more than a dozen. And that's death...broken bones, I could give give you more. I could give you pretty much any arbitrary number you ask for, within the character limits of the forum. But I have better things to do with my time than prove to a goose that water is wet. I'll let that goose jump in the water and swim around for a bit, and he'll figure it out on his own eventually. Or he won't, matters little to me.

    mcdermott on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.
    ...
    Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

    Sec. 20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future harm
    ...
    Sec. 21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power.

    Self-defense is a temporary exception because you could die and have no recourse. Using violence on another is a violation of that person's fundamental rights outside that narrow exception. You don't get to shoot someone because you're worried you might not get your property back.

    I love Locke as much as the next guy, but remember he also said that your property is an extension of your person because you put your labor into it (this is the foundation of my own views on strong property rights). He also said that you could enslave someone if their life was otherwise forfeit to you. . .

    I - He didn't say property was an extension of your person. He said self-ownership and self-ownership of labor is the basis of exclusive ownership of anything else in a state of nature (aka property rights) which is mitigated and regulated by entering into a civil society.
    II - Irrelevant. The point in question is whether there is the possibility of reparation. You can get your property back, you can't get your life back. Once you aren't in mortal peril, you don't have the justification.
    III - That's an inaccurate reading regarding slavery. He said that in order to truly make yourself a slave you have to have the power to legitimately forfeit your own life. Since Locke had previously rejected the legitimacy of taking a life including your own he is building on this to say that even voluntarily entering into slavery is not permissible. The wording is complex but:
    This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.
    So he can't (legitimately) take away the life of another or his own life. And the "legislature" lacks the power to violate his liberty in such a fashion. The next sentence is where this idea come from:
    Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.
    But he follows it immediate with:
    This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.
    The state of war is basically when shit is bad for Locke.
    Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

    Sect, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave.

    To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

    That is interesting. Thanks for posting it. I haven't read Locke in over a decade, but always find him interesting. That said, the claim that the state cannot have power over life and death is patently false in America, so this is not directly applicable. Beyond that, I disagree that the type of conflicts Locke describes as the state of war should be limited to direct assaults on persons, as I believe (as I mentioned earlier) that my property is an extension of my person, and actually believe that theft is a form of ensalvement. it is my belief that when you steal something I laborer for, you invalidate my choice to labor instead of enjoying leisure, and this forces me to essentially labor for your benefit, and without compensation.

    just to be clear, there's a huge difference between a metaphor for slavery, or something that is kind of like slavery, and actual slavery.

    theft is bad, but it's nothing near actual slavery

    you don't need to dress up theft. it's a bad thing. that's fine.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    @spacekungfuman @PantsB

    interesting Locke discussion! Let me try to dust off my memory:

    iirc, Locke does believe in infinite escalation when in the state of nature--if someone in the state of nature steals your apple, you may strike them dead (this is one of the reasons to get out of the state of nature, and form a civil society). But we aren't in the state of nature, so.

    Furthermore: Locke's argument for infinite escalation, even in the state of nature, seems to depend on some dubious empirical assumptions, viz. that someone who steals your apple thereby makes a credible threat upon your entire person. If we reject that assumption, as I think we should, then the argument doesn't even get going in the first place.

    So I don't think that there's any particularly compelling argument from Locke in particular for why you may, say, strike a thief dead when you come across them in civil society. But it's been years since I taught Locke (3 years... god I feel old), so this is based on shaky recollection.

    As a post-script: you might be hoping to get a more robust response to thievery out of Locke's metaphysics of property (space you seem to gesture in this direction). But it's worth noting that although Locke's notion of property is strong, he includes some central provisos on how he allows it to be acquired. One is that in acquiring the property you must make use of no scarce resources, always leaving as good and as much behind for anyone else who wants to do the same; the second is that you must let nothing spoil (anything you let go to waste is by natural right forfeit). I think it's pretty debatable how often these conditions are satisfied in modern civil society, and hence, how much of our 'property' would actually count as property for the Lockean.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman @PantsB

    interesting Locke discussion! Let me try to dust off my memory:

    iirc, Locke does believe in infinite escalation when in the state of nature--if someone in the state of nature steals your apple, you may strike them dead (this is one of the reasons to get out of the state of nature, and form a civil society). But we aren't in the state of nature, so.

    Furthermore: Locke's argument for infinite escalation, even in the state of nature, seems to depend on some dubious empirical assumptions, viz. that someone who steals your apple thereby makes a credible threat upon your entire person. If we reject that assumption, as I think we should, then the argument doesn't even get going in the first place.

    So I don't think that there's any particularly compelling argument from Locke in particular for why you may, say, strike a thief dead when you come across them in civil society. But it's been years since I taught Locke (3 years... god I feel old), so this is based on shaky recollection.

    As a post-script: you might be hoping to get a more robust response to thievery out of Locke's metaphysics of property (space you seem to gesture in this direction). But it's worth noting that although Locke's notion of property is strong, he includes some central provisos on how he allows it to be acquired. One is that in acquiring the property you must make use of no scarce resources, always leaving as good and as much behind for anyone else who wants to do the same; the second is that you must let nothing spoil (anything you let go to waste is by natural right forfeit). I think it's pretty debatable how often these conditions are satisfied in modern civil society, and hence, how much of our 'property' would actually count as property for the Lockean.

    I agree that the fallow field dilemma is one that we face in our society, but personally, I never found that piece of his argument compelling. That I have more than I can use does not change the fact that I expended my labor to acquire it.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman @PantsB

    interesting Locke discussion! Let me try to dust off my memory:

    iirc, Locke does believe in infinite escalation when in the state of nature--if someone in the state of nature steals your apple, you may strike them dead (this is one of the reasons to get out of the state of nature, and form a civil society). But we aren't in the state of nature, so.

    Furthermore: Locke's argument for infinite escalation, even in the state of nature, seems to depend on some dubious empirical assumptions, viz. that someone who steals your apple thereby makes a credible threat upon your entire person. If we reject that assumption, as I think we should, then the argument doesn't even get going in the first place.

    So I don't think that there's any particularly compelling argument from Locke in particular for why you may, say, strike a thief dead when you come across them in civil society. But it's been years since I taught Locke (3 years... god I feel old), so this is based on shaky recollection.

    As a post-script: you might be hoping to get a more robust response to thievery out of Locke's metaphysics of property (space you seem to gesture in this direction). But it's worth noting that although Locke's notion of property is strong, he includes some central provisos on how he allows it to be acquired. One is that in acquiring the property you must make use of no scarce resources, always leaving as good and as much behind for anyone else who wants to do the same; the second is that you must let nothing spoil (anything you let go to waste is by natural right forfeit). I think it's pretty debatable how often these conditions are satisfied in modern civil society, and hence, how much of our 'property' would actually count as property for the Lockean.

    I agree that the fallow field dilemma is one that we face in our society, but personally, I never found that piece of his argument compelling. That I have more than I can use does not change the fact that I expended my labor to acquire it.

    But you exploited a non-renewable resource to do so as well, so you need to justify why you are the one who should have the right to that resource.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    MrMister wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman @PantsB

    interesting Locke discussion! Let me try to dust off my memory:

    iirc, Locke does believe in infinite escalation when in the state of nature--if someone in the state of nature steals your apple, you may strike them dead (this is one of the reasons to get out of the state of nature, and form a civil society). But we aren't in the state of nature, so.

    Furthermore: Locke's argument for infinite escalation, even in the state of nature, seems to depend on some dubious empirical assumptions, viz. that someone who steals your apple thereby makes a credible threat upon your entire person. If we reject that assumption, as I think we should, then the argument doesn't even get going in the first place.

    So I don't think that there's any particularly compelling argument from Locke in particular for why you may, say, strike a thief dead when you come across them in civil society. But it's been years since I taught Locke (3 years... god I feel old), so this is based on shaky recollection.

    As a post-script: you might be hoping to get a more robust response to thievery out of Locke's metaphysics of property (space you seem to gesture in this direction). But it's worth noting that although Locke's notion of property is strong, he includes some central provisos on how he allows it to be acquired. One is that in acquiring the property you must make use of no scarce resources, always leaving as good and as much behind for anyone else who wants to do the same; the second is that you must let nothing spoil (anything you let go to waste is by natural right forfeit). I think it's pretty debatable how often these conditions are satisfied in modern civil society, and hence, how much of our 'property' would actually count as property for the Lockean.

    I agree that the fallow field dilemma is one that we face in our society, but personally, I never found that piece of his argument compelling. That I have more than I can use does not change the fact that I expended my labor to acquire it.

    In Locke, it comes from his religious foundations. God gave man the world so that man could use it to sustain himself: that's the basis of our right to appropriate it and employ it for our sustenance. But someone who appropriates it and then, rather than using it productively, instead lets it go to waste, is thereby flouting that purpose. Thus he undermines the basis of his right to ownership.

    I'm not religious, so that argument as formulated does nothing for me. But I think it's not hard to re-write it so that it's atheistically acceptable. Instead of starting from God's purpose, you start from some premise about all of our equal moral standing, or equal moral right to the fruits of the world: you then claim that this is the starting point from which we must derive property rights. You then make a substantially similar argument that this leads to the conclusion that schemes of accumulation which allow superabundance and waste will be incompatible with that starting point, and hence that there can be no rights to superabundant accumulation. This is all handwavy, but I think something like that plausibly goes through.

    MrMister on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    @spacekungfuman @PantsB

    interesting Locke discussion! Let me try to dust off my memory:

    iirc, Locke does believe in infinite escalation when in the state of nature--if someone in the state of nature steals your apple, you may strike them dead (this is one of the reasons to get out of the state of nature, and form a civil society). But we aren't in the state of nature, so.

    Furthermore: Locke's argument for infinite escalation, even in the state of nature, seems to depend on some dubious empirical assumptions, viz. that someone who steals your apple thereby makes a credible threat upon your entire person. If we reject that assumption, as I think we should, then the argument doesn't even get going in the first place.

    So I don't think that there's any particularly compelling argument from Locke in particular for why you may, say, strike a thief dead when you come across them in civil society. But it's been years since I taught Locke (3 years... god I feel old), so this is based on shaky recollection.

    As a post-script: you might be hoping to get a more robust response to thievery out of Locke's metaphysics of property (space you seem to gesture in this direction). But it's worth noting that although Locke's notion of property is strong, he includes some central provisos on how he allows it to be acquired. One is that in acquiring the property you must make use of no scarce resources, always leaving as good and as much behind for anyone else who wants to do the same; the second is that you must let nothing spoil (anything you let go to waste is by natural right forfeit). I think it's pretty debatable how often these conditions are satisfied in modern civil society, and hence, how much of our 'property' would actually count as property for the Lockean.

    I agree that the fallow field dilemma is one that we face in our society, but personally, I never found that piece of his argument compelling. That I have more than I can use does not change the fact that I expended my labor to acquire it.

    In Locke, it comes from his religious foundations. God gave man the world so that man could use it to sustain himself: that's the basis of our right to appropriate it and employ it for our sustenance. But someone who appropriates it and then, rather than using it productively, instead lets it go to waste, is thereby flouting that purpose. Thus he undermines the basis of his right to ownership.

    I'm not religious, so that argument as formulated does nothing for me. But I think it's not hard to re-write it so that it's atheistically acceptable. Instead of starting from God's purpose, you start from some premise about all of our equal moral standing, or equal moral right to the fruits of the world: you then claim that this is the starting point from which we must derive property rights. You then make a substantially similar argument that this leads to the conclusion that schemes of accumulation which allow superabundance and waste will be incompatible with that starting point, and hence that there can be no rights to superabundant accumulation. This is all handwavy, but I think something like that plausibly goes through.

    I agree that this is a consistent argument. What I take issue with is the premise that everyone actually does have equal standing to exploit all of the resources of the world, as the world is ever changing through the efforts of men. I don't have a problem with saying that those that come before have a claim to the full fruits of their labor. Those that come after inherit a world that is richer in some ways and poorer in others than their forebears, and can make their way in that world, IMO. I don't think that concerning ourselves with a need to create some degree of starting line equality makes much sense in a world that is clearly not committed to motions of starting line (or other) equality. Put another way, I agree with Locke on how rights in property arise, but not on what that implies re: limits on such rights.

  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Lactodorum, UKRegistered User regular
    edited July 2013
    I don't think that concerning ourselves with a need to create some degree of starting line equality makes much sense in a world that is clearly not committed to motions of starting line (or other) equality.

    MLK's first draft for his "I have a dream" speech. Inspiring.

    Muddypaws on
  • Clown ShoesClown Shoes Give me hay or give me death. Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Stupid phone.

    Anyway Ender, broken maxiofacial bone, tooth socket and displaced tooth. I can scan the medical and dental bills if you want to see. One punch I took.

    I'll add to that my brother getting a broken jaw, having a metal plate fitted and still having difficulty chewing food 10 years later. Also from one punch.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    I broke a guys nose and cheekbone with the top of my head (on purpose). One hit.

    When I was in middle school I watched a guy with a bit of a mental condition get made fun of. The guy was a BIG DUDE, were talking adult size in 7th grade. One day another kid put a sucker punch on him and the guy retaliated with a punch that shattered the attackers bone in his upper arm (whatever its called). Single punch.

    One of my sergeants had his orbital bone shattered in a single punch from combatives training. That was with 12 oz boxing gloves on.

    I dislocated a jaw on someone with a right hook, just sparring. I may not be the best fighter in the world but I got a pretty sweet right hook.

    Hospital visits due to one hit happen often enough it shouldn't be considered some rare unicorn. Also, I am far from a huge gun advocate or NRA nutter. Anyone who thinks adult males (or even teenaged ones) can't do damage with fists is being willfully ignorant, or has zero experience with violence (lucky them). The human body has a plethora of weak spots, nerve bundles, joints, small bones. Hell one of the guys in the MMA tournament almost needed a liver transplant because of a nasty kick delivered right to the guys body, underneath where the pads went.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Okay, so hopefully by this point all but one of us accept that great bodily harm can easily occur from a short unarmed assault, and can actually occur from as little as a couple punches. And that, for that matter, great bodily harm resulting from a single determined punch isn't so rare as to be dismissed (I do agree that death from a single blow is rare, though demonstrably happens).

    So the question is...how do we consider this in self-defense law?

    Knowing that an attacker can inflict great bodily harm rapidly and without a weapon, at what point in an assault or battery are we justified both in our fear of imminent great bodily harm, and the necessity of deadly force (though a firearm) to prevent that harm? I'd think we would mostly agree that being able to shoot somebody before they've even struck you once is...problematic.

    At the same time, a scenario:

    You are at a party. Apparently, at some point, you've done something to offend a large dude at that party, and he states explicitly he is going to "fuck you up." He moves towards you menacingly, making it clear that he intends to physically assault you. You are confident that your own fighting ability is such that, frankly, he is going to "fuck you up" if he so desires.

    Can you shoot him before he gets to you?

    Most "reasonable" people, I suspect, would not generally find shooting somebody who is merely approaching you and threatening you with an unarmed assault to justify shooting them. Myself included. At the same time:
    - This person is clearly capable of inflicting great bodily harm
    - This person has made clear through words or actions their intent to harm you
    - You don't have the ability to prevent that harm absent lethal force
    - Most importantly, once the assault has begun you will quite likely lose the ability to meaningfully prevent that harm with your weapon, assuming the great bodily harm isn't inflicted nearly instantly

    We'll ignore retreat/no-retreat for the moment, assume it's not a reasonable option.

    All of this sounds dry and hypothetical, at the same time I have zero doubt that multiple posters here have been in or have known people in pretty much this exact situation, and realized great bodily harm. I've personally had two friends with actual realized great bodily harm from such situations. This is not an off-the-wall scenario.

    Out of curiosity, does the explicit statement of intent to do great harm ("fuck you up") matter? Or can it be assumed that any person capable of doing so who moves to unlawfully assault you bears an unacceptable risk of "fucking you up," explicit statement or no? Does this aspect matter to you? I argue that it does not...many dangerous and harmful people don't bother to state what they're going to do to you, they just do it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    In case it's not clear, obviously I think somebody can be justified, legally, in shooting in that situation. Obviously it's a borderline situation, but it's precisely this kind of borderline situation I use in evaluating suggested changes to self-defense law that are "needed." As far as I'm concerned, any law that requires you to suffer great bodily harm at the hands of a criminal, when you are within your rights, is a flawed law. So keeping this borderline scenario in mind, in light of Blackstone's formulation, I'm always going to ask "how much risk does the proposed change introduce that this guy will be convicted?"

    I try to keep that as close to zero as possible.

    Even if it means <obviously guilty guy> walks.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I agree that scenarios like McDermott is presenting represent the most problematic situations when it comes to self defense. I would say those scenarios are best left up to prosecutorial and jury discretion, and there should be a reasonable person / legitimate threat standard.

    I don't see how there could reasonably be any blanket policy of immunity in those situations and they legitimately need to be determined on a case by case basis. There will be situations where even the words don't represent a sufficient legitimate threat, and situations where words aren't necessary. I think that a person in that situation should way the possibility that they will be prosecuted and convicted vs.their immediate fear of GBH and accept there is a risk of punishment for their actions. That should provide a damper on deadly force self defense situations where there isn't a critical and unavoidable perceived need to use deadly force.

    That's why I think the only blanket immunity should be the unlawful entry into residence combined with expressed and actionable threat, if there even should be any blanket immunity.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2013
    I think that a person in that situation should way the possibility that they will be prosecuted and convicted vs.their immediate fear of GBH and accept there is a risk of punishment for their actions. That should provide a damper on deadly force self defense situations where there isn't a critical and unavoidable perceived need to use deadly force.

    This is far too much to ask of somebody who has been placed in fear of immediate great bodily harm. When that guy is approaching you, the word "prosecution" is not anywhere in your mind. The words "hospital," "a lifetime of pain," and "I love my family oh please no" are probably in your mind. Keep in mind we are talking seconds at most to "consider" all this.

    What we need to realize is that any jury, no matter how hard they try, may be unable to recreate that fear while sitting in a courtroom or deliberating guilt.

    When you put words such as "proportionality" into the law, or shift the burden of proof to the defense, this is precisely how you unacceptably elevate the risk that the man above is convicted.

    EDIT: Basically, I'm trying to illustrate the reason that the law seems to biased in favor of acquittal, even beyond what seems reasonable, and lets people get away with "murder" (or murder).

    mcdermott on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited July 2013
    are we ignoring the possibility of drawing the gun without using it, or firing warning shots?

    i know it's a thought exercise and you're wanting to focus only on the point that killing is an appropriate response to a threat of GBH, but the idea that someone made an earnest attempt to retreat before shooting/ killing a person makes the shooting/ killing a lot more morally palatable.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • JeixJeix Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    are we ignoring the possibility of drawing the gun without using it, or firing warning shots?

    i know it's a thought exercise and you're wanting to focus only on the point that killing is an appropriate response to a threat of GBH, but the idea that someone made an earnest attempt to retreat before shooting/ killing a person makes the shooting/ killing a lot more morally palatable.

    I'm not saying this is correct but in my state we had to take a class session for conceal carry as well as a range test. In this class they teach you never to draw on someone unless you are planning on shooting them. I guess they can use it against you in court if you draw as a warning, or if you purposely fire shots that aren't intended to stop the assailant. Something about it showing that you weren't in immediate danger if you don't need to shoot the person. No idea if this is accurate though.

Sign In or Register to comment.