A short comment on self-defense and "what if he had a gun"
This is not with regards to any specific case. I’m not the judge of heaven and earth, and I also have not done close research into any specific case. My latest comments on the Daniel Penny case for example were purely with respect to the public reception of the information released by the press.
Self-defense is an important but limited right. Specifically, it seems to me that a lot of things that would be justifiable self-defense in a state of nature just aren’t in a civilized society.
I remember years ago (and I may be hazy on the details of the case) reading about a guy who was stabbed in Australia. He preceded to take the knife off his attacker and stab him many times. This was ruled not self defense- a few stabbings might have been allowable, but many was excessive force. At the time I thought this was an awful decision, now watching what’s happening in the US, I’m starting to get why it’s so important to have a hardline on self-defense.
Specifically I’m perturbed by the following argument:
I couldn’t rule out that he has a gun.
If you can’t rule out someone has a gun, no level of force against them is excessive
So my use of force wasn’t excessive
Long beloved of cops, this argument seems to be shifting into the public as a whole. If you squint it can justify almost any escalation.
In truly absurd cases it’s even being used where there was no initial use of force- e.g. I couldn’t rule out that the person at the door had a gun, therefore I was right to shoot them when they rang the doorbell.
The underlying idea seems to be that there is a right not to leave yourself open to the risk that someone ‘gets the drop on you’ in a fight.
It’s the nature of being a good person that sometimes bad people will get the drop on you. That’s just the way it goes. Society working depends on the majority of people- people who aren’t deeply vicious- accepting that as a sad truth. Violent people, because they are willing to escalate first, have a martial advantage, except in the rare cases where they declare they’re about to shoot or strike before they do. We more peaceful people just have to hope to defeat them through our greater numbers, cooperation and consistency.
The specific vice in the “what if he had a gun” line of reasoning is often obscured, because it does not suit our preconceptions. That vice is cowardice. We usually do think of it as cowardice because we associate cowardice with withdrawal from violence, not excessive employment of it. However when a cop makes a guy crawl on the flaw for thirty seconds than ends up shooting him because he didn’t feel like he could be sure the guy didn’t have a gun (he didn’t) that’s cowardice. That’s a refusal to risk your own life when justice, compassion and social harmony require that you do. Bravery is not the absence of a fear of violence, bravery is the willingness to take risks when it’s the right thing to do. What can the refusal be called if not cowardice?
It’s ironic that the people who defend this are so often sun-glasses wearing divorced dad, “bring back masculinity” types, because this behavior is, in the classical sense, unmanly.
> shifting into the pubic
Typo.
I think this ignores the sort of environmental effect, which I suppose could go either way. What I mean is, in a jurisdiction where self-defense is looked on kindly and excessive force not much of a consideration, persons in general might be less eager to start something, but on the other hand, once they decide to start something they might escalate immediately to more deadly force. But in a jurisdiction where self-defense is just not allowed or judged strictly for excessiveness, potential assailants might be more casual about starting things.
I suppose people have a predisposition on this issue according to their ideology. I would be curious to learn what the predictable effects of the different policies are by allowing people to choose their jurisdiction. It's hard to control for other factors, though, and experiments to gather data are not really the government's style.
I am open to the possibility that an act of violence calls off the rules at least until the violence is definitely stopped. Preemptive self-defense, if that isn’t a paradoxical phrase, seems harder to justify, but maybe not impossible. Are we being unreasonable hoping for bright lines? Bright lines are generally to be preferred, but not always possible to draw.