Ethics of self-defence

blueblood · December 12, 2006

I think a person has every right to defend themselves by any means they see fit. the problem I believe lies in on the definition of the line where you have defended yourself to the point where you are commiting assault yourself. For me and I do things harshly, if I was in the city and some guy tried mugging me, I would pound him to a pulp and my definition of incapacitating him would be him not being able to walk, I believe that even though I'd punch him out he's still a threat, and if he can't walk he's not much of a threat, that's my definition and it is I can assure you not the definition of most other people which can make one hell of a mess in court.

As for the guy in the dirty W with the shotgun. He does in fact have a right to defend himself, and he has somewhat of a defence, a person can impersonate an officer. The hole in his defence would be the large amount of police cruisers, and the sirens/cherries turning his living room into a night club. He knew the cops were there. I think the cops did the wrong thing. If that house was dangerous like that, it should have been gassed and the dogs should have been let in first.

CA makes the good point about some guy impersonating a cop, it is entirely possible. Whats worse is proper procedure when an officer comes to a house is that he/she is supposed to stand to the side of a door when they knock and until it opens when coming to the house to make sure that they don't get shot through the door. This makes IDing the cop that much harder. I guess look at it this way, if a cop is standing to the side of a door in case they could get shot, the homeowner should take a similar precaution in case it is someone who might commit a home invasion.

Charles Anthony · December 13, 2006

that's my definition and it is I can assure you not the definition of most other people which can make one hell of a mess in court.

Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric.

To start with, I don't own a shotgun. I do own a rifle but

Count yourself lucky. To start with, I do not own any firearms.

I am much more concerned about my grandkids when they are over than I am about a home invasion.

You are not as lucky as some people in this world.

You talk about endangering other people in the house, what do you call leaving a loaded shotgun lying around?

Quite simply, I call that: besides the point.

Home invasions, street muggings and violent crime happen constantly throughout Canada and throughout the world. When they happen, there is no law, there is no social contract and there is no government. There is only coersion and self-interest. The State and all of its dellusional glories disappear.

DarkAngel_ · December 13, 2006

Ok, ok, people, slow down, if someone attacked me, and i kicked him in his family jewels, and he could never reproduce, mattering on the level of his attack, i might accept his complaint against my ball smashing. :blink:

but if he was trying to rape a beautiful women :angry: , I would put him upside down naked, poor hot sugar and fire ants on him, and watch them slowly devour him …….not really but still…

on a personal note: i think all those rapists out there should be hunted down and raped...wait <_<

The MacQuern · December 13, 2006

A response to a threat needs to be proportional. It's not the aggressor defining what is an appropriate response but the larger society. This is all spelt out very clearly in the Python skit 'How to Defend yourself against a Man armed with a Banana'.

M.Dancer · December 13, 2006

A response to a threat needs to be proportional. It's not the aggressor defining what is an appropriate response but the larger society. This is all spelt out very clearly in the Python skit 'How to Defend yourself against a Man armed with a Banana'.

Hogwash. When you are attacked, you don't stop and assume the classic Rodin pose and decide what an appropriate reponse is, you incapitate the attacker and eliminate the threat. The attacker decides if it is worth dying over.

Figleaf · December 13, 2006

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

All interesting commentary, but most of it is outside of my hypothetical. Let's stay within the context of actually defending onself (not assaulting an already subdued attacker).

Let's say J starts beating K with a riding crop. There's little chance K will lose his life before J gets too tired to continue, but nevertheless, K pulls a knife and sticks it between J's ribs. Did K do something ethically wrong?

M.Dancer · December 13, 2006

A response to a threat needs to be desicive. If you have to, go back in time and kill his grandparents.

Figleaf · December 13, 2006

that's my definition and it is I can assure you not the definition of most other people which can make one hell of a mess in court.
Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric.

Let's make the situation a little more pointed -- bb doesn't beat the man once he's down, but during the fight he has a choice: punch the assailant in the jaw, or crack his kneecap with a kick. If bb choses the kick, can the now crippled assailant reasonably complain the he should have punched him in the jaw instead?

betsy · December 13, 2006

Q should just challenge P to an old fashion duel!

As a grade schooler I fondly recall being meanfully teased by a boy. I couldn't get at him because he run faster than I can. So I just took off my shoe and threw it at him. I got him on the head!

But the nun got me...witnessed my hitting the boy. I got rapped on the hands and detention. But it still was worth it. That's why I said "fondly recall..." To this day I could still see the boy crying. :lol:

FTA Lawyer · December 13, 2006

that's my definition and it is I can assure you not the definition of most other people which can make one hell of a mess in court.
Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric.

Let's make the situation a little more pointed -- bb doesn't beat the man once he's down, but during the fight he has a choice: punch the assailant in the jaw, or crack his kneecap with a kick. If bb choses the kick, can the now crippled assailant reasonably complain the he should have punched him in the jaw instead?

No. This is what is meant when I say that you need not "measure the nicety" of your response. In the ethics of this example, the person defending himself is well-founded to take reasonable steps to end the attack. Obviously, there are thousands of ways that could be accomplished, hundreds of which would fall into the category of "reasonable." Choose any one of these, and you are on solid ethical ground.

Coincidentally, the case law overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the results of your actions (i.e. crippled leg vs. sore jaw) are not relevant to determining whether your defensive actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

FTA

FTA Lawyer · December 13, 2006

Let's say J starts beating K with a riding crop. There's little chance K will lose his life before J gets too tired to continue, but nevertheless, K pulls a knife and sticks it between J's ribs. Did K do something ethically wrong?

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing.

I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical."

FTA

Figleaf · December 13, 2006

Let's say J starts beating K with a riding crop. There's little chance K will lose his life before J gets too tired to continue, but nevertheless, K pulls a knife and sticks it between J's ribs. Did K do something ethically wrong?

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing.

I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical."

FTA

So, you think K should accept the beating if it is merely humiliating and intensely painful but falls short of grievous bodily harm, and that K should be punished if she does not?

blueblood · December 13, 2006

that's my definition and it is I can assure you not the definition of most other people which can make one hell of a mess in court.
Why are you barbaric? If I saw you assaulting someone in that manner, I might intervene to stop you from continuing. It is non-sensical to be barbaric.

Let's make the situation a little more pointed -- bb doesn't beat the man once he's down, but during the fight he has a choice: punch the assailant in the jaw, or crack his kneecap with a kick. If bb choses the kick, can the now crippled assailant reasonably complain the he should have punched him in the jaw instead?

I was saying that if i was mugged at say knife point and I feel my life is in danger, if i just punch him out and he gets knocked over and I walk away, he can knife me in the back, so I feel it is in my interest of self defence to incapacitate him whether it be knocking him unconcious or knee capping him, threat neutralized. If it was just a bar fight, well I just punch the guy out and thats the end of it.

Remiel · December 13, 2006

Something I have heard from an aquaintance, which I imagine FTA Lawyer might be able to back up, is that it is important to NOT egg on your attacker in ANY way, be it an insult or an invitation. If you do, even if you are in fact defending yourself, it can seriously mess up your side of the case.

DarkAngel_ · December 14, 2006

A response to a threat needs to be desicive. If you have to, go back in time and kill his grandparents.

yes! or my fire ant idea! REVENGE!!!!

DarkAngel_ · December 14, 2006

Q should just challenge P to an old fashion duel!
As a grade schooler I fondly recall being meanfully teased by a boy. I couldn't get at him because he run faster than I can. So I just took off my shoe and threw it at him. I got him on the head!

But the nun got me...witnessed my hitting the boy. I got rapped on the hands and detention. But it still was worth it. That's why I said "fondly recall..." To this day I could still see the boy crying.

ANTS!!!

DarkAngel_ · December 14, 2006

on a personal note: i think all those rapists out there should be hunted down and raped...wait

no argument? ....none?

oh come on it was a joke! laugh people!!!

The MacQuern · December 14, 2006

A response to a threat needs to be proportional. It's not the aggressor defining what is an appropriate response but the larger society. This is all spelt out very clearly in the Python skit 'How to Defend yourself against a Man armed with a Banana'.

Hogwash. When you are attacked, you don't stop and assume the classic Rodin pose and decide what an appropriate reponse is, you incapitate the attacker and eliminate the threat. The attacker decides if it is worth dying over.

I think my view encompasses yours but I'm addressing the broader question about defence in general, not only the specific situation of defence against a one on one lethal attack. Society agrees that defence against such a lethal attack may itself be lethal. Society would see it as disproportionate to kill someone coming at you with a banana. Society does have rules about self defence.

Wilber · December 14, 2006

Deleted

FTA Lawyer · December 14, 2006

Let's say J starts beating K with a riding crop. There's little chance K will lose his life before J gets too tired to continue, but nevertheless, K pulls a knife and sticks it between J's ribs. Did K do something ethically wrong?

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing.

I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical."

FTA

So, you think K should accept the beating if it is merely humiliating and intensely painful but falls short of grievous bodily harm, and that K should be punished if she does not?

No, no, no, no, no. All I have been trying to say here is this:

1. Self Defence is an area of the law where what is "legal" and what is "ethical" seem to coincide.

2. The reason I say #1 is because you are entitled to legally repel any kind of assault from a touch to a gunshot...but only with force which is considered "reasonable" in the circumstances.

3. What is reasonable in any given scenario does not involve dissecting with 20/20 hindsight what the defender did or what the results were...the issue is, in the defender's mind, what did he know and what did he reasonably believe to be the threat and the necessary force to end the threat.

If K wants to use force to end an assault (be it merely annoying or altogether life-threatening) let him feel free to do so...but back to the OP...if he does so in a completely disproportionate manner to the threat he faced he cannot legally or ethically expect that the aggressor has no ground to complain.

FTA

Figleaf · December 14, 2006

...
If K wants to use force to end an assault (be it merely annoying or altogether life-threatening) let him feel free to do so...but back to the OP...if he does so in a completely disproportionate manner to the threat he faced he cannot legally or ethically expect that the aggressor has no ground to complain.

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not?

Charles Anthony · December 14, 2006

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not?

Yes!

Where should the goal posts go now?

Figleaf · December 14, 2006

Where should the goal posts go now?

Would you really like to know?

FTA Lawyer · December 14, 2006

...

If K wants to use force to end an assault (be it merely annoying or altogether life-threatening) let him feel free to do so...but back to the OP...if he does so in a completely disproportionate manner to the threat he faced he cannot legally or ethically expect that the aggressor has no ground to complain.

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not?

I know you may think I am being equivocal...but the bottom line is that it depends on the circumstances.

I can't really do any better than what I have set out in my previous posts about what factors will be considered in answering your question.

Is stabbing someone in the guts a reasonable response to being stung with a stick? Maybe...maybe not.

Why don't you tell me?

FTA

P.S. I have a trial in March where the issue is self-defence. My client pulled a knife on a guy who attempted to get him to fight outside a nightclub and then pursued my client to his house in a cab. Even after my client pulling the knife, the guy still jumped at him and in the ensuing melee, the guy ended up with a minor stab-wound.

My client has no criminal record...the guy has a record for assaulting a person outside of the exact same nightclub where this incident originated...

I'll let you know what the Provincial Court of Alberta says on the issue!

blueblood · December 14, 2006

...

If K wants to use force to end an assault (be it merely annoying or altogether life-threatening) let him feel free to do so...but back to the OP...if he does so in a completely disproportionate manner to the threat he faced he cannot legally or ethically expect that the aggressor has no ground to complain.

So is it OK for K to use the knife against the riding crop or not?

I know you may think I am being equivocal...but the bottom line is that it depends on the circumstances.

I can't really do any better than what I have set out in my previous posts about what factors will be considered in answering your question.

Is stabbing someone in the guts a reasonable response to being stung with a stick? Maybe...maybe not.

Why don't you tell me?

FTA

P.S. I have a trial in March where the issue is self-defence. My client pulled a knife on a guy who attempted to get him to fight outside a nightclub and then pursued my client to his house in a cab. Even after my client pulling the knife, the guy still jumped at him and in the ensuing melee, the guy ended up with a minor stab-wound.

My client has no criminal record...the guy has a record for assaulting a person outside of the exact same nightclub where this incident originated...

I'll let you know what the Provincial Court of Alberta says on the issue!

Oh I like these! Why did the guy want to fight your client in the first place? Was it a consentual fight before the knife was pulled or was your client swarmed. Did your client get his clock cleaned? I'd almost say the other guy has a case for self defense in that he thought his life was in danger due to the knife in play. What's disturbing is that he got the knife into the night club. I think all your client should get is the concealed weapon thing, the other guy had a choice to bail out but chose to fight your client anyway, so he's gotta assume some responsibility for himself getting stabbed.