doc_strange (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
doc_strange) wrote2006-05-27 10:10 am
doc_strange) wrote2006-05-27 10:10 am
Duty to meet with equal force?
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.
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.
no subject
With regard to this specific case, if Kuenzli did indeed charge at Fish threatening bodily harm after Fish had already fired a warning shot, it demonstrates a disregard for his own life that puts Fish in that much more danger.
As far as other options were available - my question is what other options do the prosecutors have in mind? Let's see: Fish can 1) do nothing and wait and see if he's going to be beaten senseless, or 2) he can run back up the trail he's just exited, resulting in either having to make the same decision when Kuenzli catches up to him or Kuenzli and his dogs between him & civilization, 3) whip out his cell phone and hope he has time to call 911 and hope the police arrive before he's killed, or 4) he can wait until he's reasonably certain he's being attacked and fire 3 shots at close range into the chest of his attacker. Does anyone see any other possibilities here?
no subject
As you can guess, I think #4 is the reasonable option for self-defense. In taking real responsibility for one's safety, one takes real responsibility for one's actions: One deals with the consequences if one is mistaken. Some forms of manslaughter are not lightweight charges to face.
no subject
b) I've heard the argument that if you are going to use deadly force, you should not fire a warning shot or anything, and just go ahead and kill them. Otherwise you didn't really believe you were actually in immediate danger. (This is probably from Texas law.) Commentary on that? (Or perhaps it is just in the hopes that the person you shot dead can't sue you for hurting them and that any next of kin won't bother.)
no subject
a) Yes, actually a number leading that way, with Castle Rock v. Gonzales the crowning Supreme Court decision. Logic says that of course the police can't always be there in time to help, but the case says that police don't even have an obligation to try. I guess it hammers home the self-defense angle, but it's not actually the root of the right to defend one's self.
b) That seems to state the standard for LEOs. My whole screed there was in regards to the peculiar assumption that a person can only use force equal to the attacker's force. If the only reasonable way a victim can stop someone from turning his face to jelly is deadly force, then it should be permissible. Again, why should an attacker get to determine the limits of the defender's response. It's not a matter of "fair sport pip pip wot wot!"
no subject
no subject