3 ms·

It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly force.

wnoise 5y ago
Those aren't actually contradictory, but independent.
fmihaila 5y ago
These two assertions ('shooting was an accident...' and 'she was within her rights...') are not inherently contradictory, though. That's what's remarkable about Kettle Logic: genuine contradictions can be employed in a proof in a convincing (and not necessarily invalid) manner. The above can be orthogonal or complementary assertions, but they are not contradictory.
munchbunny 5y ago
That's not kettle logic, that's a mode of legal argumentation that deals with boolean "and" constructions of a law. If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]", not "[A] or [B]".
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Interesting. That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted No, you don't. It's just if you are charged with an offense that requires intent, the question of self-defense (or any other excuse) is moot if the prosecutor can't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. If you are charged with an offense that doesn't require intent, like involuntary manslaughter, you don't have to argue intent to kill to use self-defense as an excuse. And even of you are charged with an intent crime, you don't need to grant intent to argue self-defense.

wnoise 5y ago

Those aren't actually contradictory, but independent.

fmihaila 5y ago

These two assertions ('shooting was an accident...' and 'she was within her rights...') are not inherently contradictory, though. That's what's remarkable about Kettle Logic: genuine contradictions can be employed in a proof in a convincing (and not necessarily invalid) manner. The above can be orthogonal or complementary assertions, but they are not contradictory.

munchbunny 5y ago

That's not kettle logic, that's a mode of legal argumentation that deals with boolean "and" constructions of a law. If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]", not "[A] or [B]".

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?

dragonwriter 5y ago
Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  Interesting. That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted No, you don't. It's just if you are charged with an offense that requires intent, the question of self-defense (or any other excuse) is moot if the prosecutor can't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. If you are charged with an offense that doesn't require intent, like involuntary manslaughter, you don't have to argue intent to kill to use self-defense as an excuse. And even of you are charged with an intent crime, you don't need to grant intent to argue self-defense.