Duty to meet with equal force?

[doc_strange]

Recently, the Arizona Sun ran a story about the pending trial of a man who shot and killed an alleged attacker. Give it a read - it's short and plaintext. I'll wait...

Done? Ok. As there were no witnesses, I can see how the prosecutors could want to test the facts before a jury. I have no argument actually with that - and there may be facts unrevealed to the press that contradict the defendant's story. For the sake of this discussion, let's set aside the "who is funding the defense" controversy (which I have to say, really is technically irrelevant in our system of justice - How are the defendant's actions changed by what organization subsequently steps up to fund the defense? A defendant should not be judged by who helps fund the defense; that if anything is utterly unjust.).

That aside, there are some peculiar statements in the article. Here, I think is the big one:
After several warnings for [alleged attacker] to stop, [defendant] shot [alleged attacker] three times in the chest at close range. [defendant] was not harmed, and [alleged attacker] did not have a weapon in his hands at the time he was killed. . . other options were available.

My comments in the... um, comments. Discuss.

Comments

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

It's taken me a while to put the unstated argument into words: That a victim must accommodate an attacker's level-of-force expectations, letting the attacker determine the limits of defensive response. I feel that once the attacker crosses a certain line, the target of aggression has a basic human right to prevent immanent harm to self or others. I am willing to hear arguments about that line in terms of aggressive behavior, but I don't think it requires display of a deadly weapon. Every day people maim or beat others to death with bare hands or a convenient stick or rock, let alone with a knife or other weapon pulled only when the tide turns against them. Attackers have no right to get in a few licks on "fair fight" terms.

I still think this case, having no witness and possibly some contested facts, deserves to go to trial. But if the question is "given a aggressive attacker and even half a possibility of being tackled while running away, should the defendant have chosen other options?" I would say, no.

[ivy]

I agree with most of that. The "where is that line" is arguable, but I think demonstrated intent to cause severe harm to my person is it. (I can't shoot someone for grabbing my butt. I can if they're trying to rape me. I think many people consider deadly force versus rape not okay, which is odd to me.) The person committing the wrong loses some fair-fight rights by deciding to assault someone else.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Yes - the standard seems to me to be best set at the reasonable impression of imminent bodily harm or death. Then again, I don't think one should be expected to permit one's self to be put into a headlock or other disabling position. My guess, however, is that (in the US) people tend to consider a head-on charge from a crazed but unarmed attacker a more marginal case for armed peronal defense than a rape attempt (which I actually think most would agree is cause for armed self-defense).