Our idea of self-defense is screwed up. If someoe is trying to - TopicsExpress



          

Our idea of self-defense is screwed up. If someoe is trying to rob me, I have just cause to stop them with reasonable means. I can shove them out of my house and lock the door, I can call the police, I can scream for help from others, I can hold them at gun point until police arrive even. If they attempt to resist, I can shoot to injur. I can imobilize them by locking them in a room or binding them. Only if they are threatening my life or the life of another, and only if there is no lesser means available, can I shoot to kill. I am obliged to try anything within my power in order of least severity, before I resort to ending their life. I cannot shoot first and ask questions later. Well, apparently I can legally do this, but doing so would be morally wrong. Should the self-defender not be held responsible for usiing of the most minimal means possible? And punished if they fail to do so? And if the person caused the contact, initiated the contact, are they not ultimately responsible for its outcome and dobuly repsonsible to make sure the impact is minimal, not maximal???
Posted on: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:57:44 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015