May. 2nd, 2017

aphar: (lambda)
The Right of Self-Defense is the most ancient right - far older than, e.g., the concept of property - and observed in the animal kingdom as well.
The only limitation generally recognized is relatively recent: the requirement that the defensive force is reasonable, i.e., commensurate with the threat (e.g., Torah prohibits killing a burglar if he poses no physical danger).

Nevertheless, Huffington post lent its pages to a preposterous claim (note that the author confused deprived with devoid):

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

The detailed rebuttal is a fun read, I will only quote the conclusion:

This is balls-out/tin-foil hat insanity. The only thing thought provoking about his argument is; why isn’t he in an institution where he can get the help he needs?

All I have to add on the matter is that at the "moment of conflict", i.e., at the time of the attack, the perpetrator and the victim are in the State of nature, so the State monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force does not apply and the attacker has no rights whatsoever (including, but not limited to, the right to fair trial).

August 2017

67 89101112
131415 16171819
20 21 2223242526

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios