Is your life worth more or less than the life of your attacker? See what the law say

Making a case for changes in the law that excuses/justifies use of lethal force. I'm not sure it will sprout wings, let alone fly. But it's a good issue to read and chew upon for the meat it brings to the discussion.

stay safe.

http://armsandthelaw.com/

[h=2]Prof. Lerner on self-defense[/h]Posted by David Hardy · 10 January 2012 08:55 AM
I blogged a presentation of hers years ago, now she has her paper online. By "proportionality" she means self defense law that implicitly treats the life of the defender as equal to the life of the attacker. If the defender can only use lethal force if his or her own life is on the line, then the law treats the two lives as of equal value. But, as she points out, the vast majority of people (and not only in the US) do not consider the life of a violent criminal as equal to that of his potential victim. Sometimes, indeed, the European laws do a better job of reflecting this. For example, should the victim use force out of anger rather than fear, they allow a defense or partial defense (reduction of charges) on the basis that the attacker should bear responsibility for having created that anger.

Click to expand...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961468 in case you missed the link to the paper. Click on ONE CLICK DOWNLOAD to get the paper in PDF format.

Thanks for the citation. It has been downloaded for later reading.

In re proportionality, Volokh uses a similar syllogism in n Guilty Men.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

Yes, the soup of intellectual discussion, here, is quite thin.

i don't care what early astronauts saw or about that scientific garbage that you quote to make you sound smart i was speaking from MY experience of looking in MY mirror in the dark with MY gun in MY house

Click to expand...

Admit that warning flags went up as soon as I read "European laws" - no wish to be guided by their successes(?) sarcasm

To even suggest that one is contributing to the problem if their anger at being attacked supplants fear (even in part) is misdirecting the thought process. How one feels (emotions) about being forced to chose to defend life and limb should have little to no bearing on the act itself nor any part of a victim punishment process that has become so evident in European law.

The relative worth/merit of the aggressor's life is NOT the question since I do NOT chose to end it but rather practically, philosophically and emotionally I am only reacting to protect mine. The goal is to stop the aggressor by any means available, not to kill. Stopping quickly and assuredly being paramount considerations.

I will acknowledge/accept that it (his life) has value to him, but he forfeits control by being the one that creates the jeopardy/risk that accompanies his actions.

Stopped entertaining the idea of continuing to read this or debating the issue very early into the exercise as I am not a proponent of self-flagellation - reading that misguided tome hurt. Be my quest, knock yourself out - when your done, tell me what you accomplished.

Admit that warning flags went up as soon as I read "European laws" - no wish to be guided by their successes(?) sarcasm

To even suggest that one is contributing to the problem if their anger at being attacked supplants fear (even in part) is misdirecting the thought process. How one feels (emotions) about being forced to chose to defend life and limb should have little to no bearing on the act itself nor any part of a victim punishment process that has become so evident in European law.

The relative worth/merit of the aggressor's life is NOT the question since I do NOT chose to end it but rather practically, philosophically and emotionally I am only reacting to protect mine. The goal is to stop the aggressor by any means available, not to kill. Stopping quickly and assuredly being paramount considerations.

I will acknowledge/accept that it (his life) has value to him, but he forfeits control by being the one that creates the jeopardy/risk that accompanies his actions.

Stopped entertaining the idea of continuing to read this or debating the issue very early into the exercise as I am not a proponent of self-flagellation - reading that misguided tome hurt. Be my quest, knock yourself out - when you're done, tell me what you accomplished.

My life, and those of who I choose to care, are ALWAYS more important than those of nefarious intent. In fact, they're more important than anyone else as far as I'm concerned.

When it comes to my life and the lives of my loved ones, I derive my right to defend myself from the law of the land, that is, our Constitution, and will use whatever level of force is necessary to see that we, the law-abiding attacked, live, while one or more law-breaking attackers are stopped in their aggression against us.

Whatever laws may state otherwise are immaterial to any self-defense situation at hand. Whether they're correct or in violation of the law of the land will have to wait for examination at a later date. I can obtain a stay on court dates. I cannot obtain a stay on the action of an attacker. They must be dealt with here and now.