The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

[Thorne]

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply.

Reasonable certainty is certainly ... reasonable. I have no argument with that. But who gets to define "reasonable"? The intended victim (turned killer) or the criminal's family?

Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe?

A holstered weapon, while it might make you uncomfortable, would not in and of itself be threatening. It will make you more aware of the person, though, which isn't a bad thing either. The man with the knife I described was in fact threatening. My scenario was intended to imply that he was displaying the knife in a threatening, aggressive manner, such as pointed at you, or slashing in your direction. I would consider that to be threatening, with reasonable certainty.

Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

Fortunately, the look in someone's eye cannot be considered grounds for self defense. Unless he actually draws his weapon, or strikes you even without the weapon, his actions cannot be considered threatening. Unnerving perhaps, but not threatening.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I don't intend to imply any such desire myself. I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

I agree with you. Even in the act of self defense we have to be held responsible for our actions. That's why I think mandatory training, real training not just lip service, should be a requirement. And why I think any shooting, whether self defense or not, should be fully investigated.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

And again, I disagree. While any weapon can be lethal, even a baseball bat, carrying that weapon does not necessary show a desire or willingness to kill. It only shows a desire for self defense. If threatening my attacker with the weapon suffices in driving him off, I'd be quite happy not to have fired a shot. Bullets cost money, you know!

[MMI]

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.

I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.

I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation.

How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.

But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"

(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)

[DuncanONeil]

Again you always assume the worst. This assumption appears to be based solely upon the presence of a firearm. By your analysis I should have been engaged in several shootings. I am continually upset while at home by the actions of others and there are handguns and rifles in my house.

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.

I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.


How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.



That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"

(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)

[js207]

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.
...
That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Fortunately, it isn't that simple. To quote one relevant American law:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

I for one wholeheartedly concur. I would far rather have a dead burglar than a burgled home. Never mind limiting the use of deadly force, I very much support the idea of criminals dying in the commission of their crime whenever possible. Criminals' rights should essentially begin once in custody and all resistance to arrest has ceased; until that point, any injury they may sustain is entirely their own fault.

[DuncanONeil]

Me!!! Thanks a lot! I upset you that much? Holstered, no you got no right. But with a draw of that weapon you might have a case.

It is not the act of killing that makes murder it is intent!

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)