5 ms·

Alleged criminals. We have a legal system that determines innocence or guilt. Before that systems assigns one or the other, they are alleged criminals. We, a

by Frondo 11y ago

Alleged criminals. We have a legal system that determines innocence or guilt. Before that systems assigns one or the other, they are alleged criminals. We, a civilized people, do not punish alleged criminals, because they are, by definition, not guilty of a crime.

hga 11y ago
We do not demand you get a jury verdict before using lethal force on someone threatening lethal force, there's no "alleged" from my viewpoint if someone is pointing a gun at me. Which, I should point out, isn't punishment. Which 15155 never said we could do, he only talked about what you can do in felonious acts, defend yourself, and about a value system that puts criminals above the law-abiding.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Alleged criminals. Not even alleged criminals; the right to self-defense usually requires that the threat comes from someone without a legal privilege for the act, but the requirements for actual criminality (particular mens rea) are not necessarily required to trigger the right to use force in self-defense, even lethal force. And this makes sense: the right to self-defense is not about the criminal culpability of the one against whom violence is permitted, its about a limit on the criminal culpability of the user of violence. Now, one can argue that in some jurisdictions the details of the rules on self-defense are drawn overly broadly, or that they are applied selectively and in a discriminatory manner. But I don't think the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat which had no legal privilege to be made, independently of whether the one making the threat met the legal standards for criminal culpability in so doing, should be even slightly controversial.
- hga 11y ago
  the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat As long as once the threshold of lethal force is reached, all lethal force in reply until the threat is over is legitimate. Midway through it's now almost total ban on guns the U.K. made self-defense with more force than being used on you illegal, first in the courts in the '50s and then by law in the '60s. Outlawing effective self-defense then makes it that much easier to outlaw guns altogether.
  - 15155 11y ago
    Have an enjoyable read of this document: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm > The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. This is the sad state that the UK is in at the moment.
15155 11y ago
This isn't a matter of criminal liability, it's one of immediate survival. If a violent aggressor who is shot happens to survive, the court can decide their fate later, but that's completely separate from the right to self defense. This is the law that we, a civilized society, live by. If you don't like it, there are countries (UK!) where self-defense is almost entirely illegal - they may be more fitting. Furthermore, we decree the right to self-defense as a _natural_ right, not one that could be potentially amended away.

by Frondo 11y ago

hga 11y ago

We do not demand you get a jury verdict before using lethal force on someone threatening lethal force, there's no "alleged" from my viewpoint if someone is pointing a gun at me. Which, I should point out, isn't punishment. Which 15155 never said we could do, he only talked about what you can do in felonious acts, defend yourself, and about a value system that puts criminals above the law-abiding.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Alleged criminals. Not even alleged criminals; the right to self-defense usually requires that the threat comes from someone without a legal privilege for the act, but the requirements for actual criminality (particular mens rea) are not necessarily required to trigger the right to use force in self-defense, even lethal force. And this makes sense: the right to self-defense is not about the criminal culpability of the one against whom violence is permitted, its about a limit on the criminal culpability of the user of violence. Now, one can argue that in some jurisdictions the details of the rules on self-defense are drawn overly broadly, or that they are applied selectively and in a discriminatory manner. But I don't think the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat which had no legal privilege to be made, independently of whether the one making the threat met the legal standards for criminal culpability in so doing, should be even slightly controversial.

hga 11y ago
the general principal that people will not be held criminally accountable for use of force reasonably scaled to deal with an imminent threat As long as once the threshold of lethal force is reached, all lethal force in reply until the threat is over is legitimate. Midway through it's now almost total ban on guns the U.K. made self-defense with more force than being used on you illegal, first in the courts in the '50s and then by law in the '60s. Outlawing effective self-defense then makes it that much easier to outlaw guns altogether.
- 15155 11y ago
  Have an enjoyable read of this document: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm > The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm. This is the sad state that the UK is in at the moment.

15155 11y ago

This isn't a matter of criminal liability, it's one of immediate survival. If a violent aggressor who is shot happens to survive, the court can decide their fate later, but that's completely separate from the right to self defense. This is the law that we, a civilized society, live by. If you don't like it, there are countries (UK!) where self-defense is almost entirely illegal - they may be more fitting. Furthermore, we decree the right to self-defense as a _natural_ right, not one that could be potentially amended away.