Ethics of self-defence

[Figleaf]

Hm?

[M.Dancer]

Hm?

An attack on me or my family will be treated as a lethal threat and dealt with accordingly.

[FTA Lawyer]

I'm a criminal lawyer who regularly deals with the law of self-defence and I don't understand your poll question...I doubt I'm the only one.

What exactly are you asking our opinion of?

FTA

[Figleaf]

I'm a criminal lawyer who regularly deals with the law of self-defence and I don't understand your poll question...I doubt I'm the only one.

What exactly are you asking our opinion of?

FTA

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence?

Hm?

An attack on me or my family will be treated as a lethal threat and dealt with accordingly.

Hello Dancer. Welcome back.

[Charles Anthony]

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence?

Yes.

In related news: if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody care?

[Figleaf]

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence?

Yes.

On what grounds?

[theloniusfleabag]

I agree with FTA Lawyer,

I don't understand your poll question...I doubt I'm the only one.

What exactly are you asking our opinion of?

Why would the aggressor define the limit? I would think that the victim would have more say....then again, that is why we have 'law' to define those limits.

[kimmy]

If Q charges at P brandishing a big stick, P shouldn't be required to defend himself using a stick in response. P should be entitled to use whatever means are necessary to ensure his safety, whether that means a stick, a handgun, or a cruise missile.

In initiating an assault, it seems to me that Q has waived any right to a "fair fight". P's right to personal security ought to win out.

However, if P's actions far exceed what is necessary to nullify the threat, then he's committing a crime. If P''s defence against Q's attack leaves Q rolling on the floor bawling in pain, Q is not a threat anymore, and further violence by P would be unnecessary and probably criminal.

-k

[Charles Anthony]

If Q charges at P brandishing a big stick, P shouldn't be required to defend himself using a stick in response. P should be entitled to use whatever means are necessary to ensure his safety, whether that means a stick, a handgun, or a cruise missile.

Hey! I want to be on Kimmy's team!

However, if P's actions far exceed what is necessary to nullify the threat, then he's committing a crime. If P''s defence against Q's attack leaves Q rolling on the floor bawling in pain, Q is not a threat anymore, and further violence by P would be unnecessary and probably criminal.

I could also say: "What if the victim was blind (or mentally retarded) and could not see (and hence judge) that his aggressor was incapacitated. What if the victim kept striking out until he heard his that the aggressor was finally motionless -- the only way he could be certain of his own safety."

The trouble with that argument is that it can go in circles and circles ad nauseum. [i wonder if that was the purpose of the vague question.]

Why would the aggressor define the limit?

The aggressor is just complaining.

Yes.

On what grounds?

On the grounds that nobody needs to hear his complaint or nobody is obligated to act upon his complaint. Hence, my sarcastic "sound of a tree" example.

[Melanie_]

The big issue in Winnipeg right now is a drug bust that went bad last week. Cops executed a search warrent, and entered the house clearly stating they were from Winnipeg Police. The suspected dealer hid in a locked bathroom and fired through the door with a shotgun, injuring two officers. His defense is that he thought he was being the victim of a home invasion, and was just using what he believed to be neccessary force to protect himself. Can the cops complain of his use of force for what he is claiming was self defense?

[kimmy]

The trouble with that argument is that it can go in circles and circles ad nauseum. [i wonder if that was the purpose of the vague question.]

I can only anticipate that when the other shoe drops, it's going to have something to do with international politics rather than two guys fighting on the street.

("Ok, option C wins this poll in a landslide. So why do people feel that using suicide bombers against military targets is unjustified?")

-k

[cybercoma]

I think the self-defense laws are perfectly written. I would like to think if someone is aggressively yelling then shoves someone, that doesn't give the shoved person the right to pull out a gun and murder the aggressor. The law is fine. And as it pertains to law-enforcement, they're allowed to use one level of aggression above the attacker.

[Charles Anthony]

His defense is that he thought he was being the victim of a home invasion, and was just using what he believed to be neccessary force to protect himself.

Makes sense to me.

Can the cops complain of his use of force for what he is claiming was self defense?

Sure, they can complain but who cares??

Realistically, who cares what the law says??? If I was a cop, I would learn from this example and think twice before taking the liberty of storming into someone else's home.

What would YOU do?? Expect everybody to blindly obey brutal force??

If I kicked down YOUR house and yelled "Winnipeg Police!! Obey our command!" what would YOU do???

[Wilber]

Last year a judge in Mission BC dismissed a case because he said the RCMP did not give a resident enough time to respond before forcing a door when exercising a warrant on a grow op. According to this judge the Charter says the police must give enough time for a resident to arm himself before forcing a door. This is in a society where the crooks are often better armed than the police.

The other day my kid went to a residence to follow up on a case where a guy had been stopped for a traffic violation and a pistol grip shotgun was found in his car. Among other restricted weapons they found an AR15 with a laser sight and the serial numbers filed off.

The Winnipeg incident was also a drug warrant being served on a member of a gang associated with the Hells Angels. What would you learn from it if you were a cop? To go home if the guy didn't answer the door bell?

[Charles Anthony]

The Winnipeg incident was also a drug warrant being served on a member of a gang associated with the Hells Angels. What would you learn from it if you were a cop? To go home if the guy didn't answer the door bell?

If I was paid to bring that gang member back to the police headquarters, I would use my brain.

Anyone with a sense of personal safety and common decency for the possibility of cross-fire victims would surround the alleged criminal and starve him out. There is no excuse for brutal force from the incident described and the proof is in the pudding: the aggressors got shot.

This reminds me of that funny television show "Dog The Bounty Hunter" who does not use firearms. He only uses pepper-spray.

[Wilber]

Anyone with a sense of personal safety and common decency for the possibility of cross-fire victims would surround the alleged criminal and starve him out. There is no excuse for brutal force from the incident described and the proof is in the pudding: the aggressors got shot.

You would evacuate everyone who lived on that block until he was starved out?

[Charles Anthony]

You would evacuate everyone who lived on that block until he was starved out?

Be reasonable. That is not what I said.

I would sit in a parked cruiser in front of his drive-way -- like they do in the movies.

By the way, what would YOU do? Is ridiculously kamikaze brutal self-sacrificial force the only thing you can choose? Try to be creative -- at least for the sake of your children who do not need to be orphaned over a stupid drug-bust.

[Melanie_]

If I kicked down YOUR house and yelled "Winnipeg Police!! Obey our command!" what would YOU do???

Good question. I'd like to think that, having nothing to hide, I'd be fairly cooperative, but I've never been in the situation so I can't say what I'd do. I know I don't have a shotgun readily available for me to grab and hide with in the bathroom, though.

[Electric Monk]

Hypothetical situation in a nightclub: I (a large male) proposition a female. Enraged by my lack of tact, cheesy pickup line, and corduroy vest, she proceeds to slap and kick me in the shins multiple times. I pull the roll of coins out of my pocket (why would that be there? ), insert it in my closed fist, and proceed to break her jaw, also giving her a concussion. Should she be able to complain?

I think so, my response was disproportionate to the provocation, which is why I voted for "Yes, in some situations".

[Wilber]

You would evacuate everyone who lived on that block until he was starved out?

Be reasonable. That is not what I said.

I would sit in a parked cruiser in front of his drive-way -- like they do in the movies.

By the way, what would YOU do? Is ridiculously kamikaze brutal self-sacrificial force the only thing you can choose? Try to be creative -- at least for the sake of your children who do not need to be orphaned over a stupid drug-bust.

Perhaps you watch too many movies. I'm not saying there were no mistakes made or that it couldn't have been handled better. I don't know. The fact is, part of a police officers job description is dealing with bad people who are often well armed. They are far better qualified to manage the risks they take than you or I. No doubt procedures will be reviewed and perhaps there will be some changes. Perhaps not. The police departments in our country serve hundreds if not thousands of warrants every day without incident but once and a while things don't go according to plan and someone gets hurt.

I'm not going to prejudge this incident because I don't know enough about it and neither do you, so perhaps you shouldn't either.

[White Doors]

Hm?

An attack on me or my family will be treated as a lethal threat and dealt with accordingly.

what he said.

[Charles Anthony]

If I kicked down YOUR house and yelled "Winnipeg Police!! Obey our command!" what would YOU do???

Good question. I'd like to think that, having nothing to hide, I'd be fairly cooperative,

I would like to think you were co-operative too. Unfortunately for you, guess what: I am not a police officer.

Ugly, is it not?

I'm not going to prejudge this incident because I don't know enough about it and neither do you, so perhaps you shouldn't either.

Unfortunately, MeLanie up above just got mugged by what she rightfully thought was a police officer.

Anyway, Wilber, I repeat: what would YOU do?

[Melanie_]

Well, I fell into that one, didn't I? Guess I better rethink what I store under my bathroom sink.....

[FTA Lawyer]

I'm a criminal lawyer who regularly deals with the law of self-defence and I don't understand your poll question...I doubt I'm the only one.

What exactly are you asking our opinion of?

FTA

If Q assaults P and P defends, can Q justly (in an ethical rather than stricly legal sense) complain of P's methods in defence?

Of course...depending on what P actually does.

While some may not think it, criminal law is largely built on concepts of ethics and morality...that is, we generally criminalize conduct that is morally and ethically wrong.

The law of self-defence is actually a good example of this because it accounts for all of the possible scenarios...where the defender is attacked unprovoked, where the defender believes an attack is coming and makes a pre-emptive strike, and yes, where the initial agressor becomes the defender.

An assault can be any unwanted touching or even an attempt or threat to do so. If I were to push someone because I think he or she is stupid, and then walk away, I have committed an assault (legally, morally, ethically). If the victim of my assault "defends" himself by bludgeoning me to death with a baseball bat from behind, I think I have a valid complaint (legally, morally, ethically).

There are all kinds of nuances about the way the law actually applies (in large part depending on whether the defender reasonably believes they are at risk of death or grievous bodily harm or not), but the general summary is that you are only entitled to defend yourself with force that is reasonably necessary. If you far exceed what is reasonable, then in law (and I dare say morally and ethically) you are no longer defending yourself, but in fact, committing an unlawful assault of your own.

For those who will then question how to know where the line is, I can tell you that the common law has routinely confirmed that one acting in self defence need not "measure with nicety" the level of his or her response. That is, if you over-react a little, whether that is considered "reasonable force" or not will be decided by considering what you knew and subjectively thought at the time you were defending yourself, with a full appreciation for the panic and fear that often is in play.

Bottom line (which I think is the point of the OP), if you don't want to be overzealously "defended" against, don't attack people in the first place. That being said, just because you may have assaulted someone, it does not mean they have free license to attack you back with whatever method and with whatever force they please (legally, ethically, morally).

FTA

[Wilber]

Anyway, Wilber, I repeat: what would YOU do?

To start with, I don't own a shotgun. I do own a rifle but it is not kept loaded and handy so I can shoot the first person who walks through the door. The rifle, its bolt and ammunition are all stored in different parts of the house. I am much more concerned about my grandkids when they are over than I am about a home invasion.

If this guy was worried about a home invasion, my guess is he had good reason to be and not by the police. If the guy could get his shotgun, load it and run to the bathroom before the police got in, he is at least guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm. You talk about endangering other people in the house, what do you call leaving a loaded shotgun lying around?