Some people believe that all killing is murder. To them, a woman fighting off a rapist has committed a greater crime than the rapist intended if she kills him in the process. Even if that was the only way not to be raped, even if he intended to kill her after, even if he had already killed other women, none of that matters — if she kills him she’s as bad as he is, possibly worse than he is.
The same thinking, scaled down a bit, leads to kids being punished for fighting in school if they passively got punched and never fought back.
Deoxy
on September 3, 2019 at 10:09 am
Yes, and those people are literally* too stupid to live on their own. They only survive because our society chooses to protect them.
Well, OK, not ALL of them are that stupid – some are simply amazingly naive. That at least can be remedied.
* “Literally” as in “non-figuratively”, and also “non-intended-to-be-insulting-ly” – literally.
David Nuttall
on August 30, 2019 at 5:12 pm
The legal term in my jurisdiction and a few others I can think of is Justifiable Homicide by Reason of Self-Defence. Self-Defence, in this case includes protecting others. This could be considered similar to the outcome of the trolley dilema*. Do you act to save two people, even though doing so in this manner kills two of the perpetrators that you do not realize were in the path of your action to save the others.
* You are standing beside a switch control on a trolley line when you notice an out of control trolley car coming down the tracks towards you. As you look down the tracks beyond your switch you see a group of people on the track that if you do nothing will be hit and probably killed by the runaway trolley car. If you pull the switch, the trolley will be diverted to another track where a single person is standing, who would be killed by the out-of-control car. What should you do and why?
David Nuttall
on August 30, 2019 at 5:41 pm
If you shoot at a wall, not realizing that others are standing behind it, and the bullets go through the wall and kill the people on the other side, that could be considered Reckless Endangerment causing Death, a clause of Second-degree murder, depending on your intent.
Deoxy
on September 3, 2019 at 10:11 am
Yes, but if the people on the other side were shooting at you (or someone else) and it would thus be legal to shoot them in self-defense, doing so by accident doesn’t suddenly make it a crime again.
Self defense is an active claim against incrimination for homicide. If the claim is valid, it *shouldn’t* matter that it was an accidental homicide, and the chances of a jury finding you guilty for doing it accidentally (when they wouldn’t for doing it on purpose) is stupendously low.
David Nuttall
on August 30, 2019 at 9:37 pm
Re: Trolley problem
A recent SSDD cartoon suggested jamming the switch midway, causing a derailment and saving everybody down-track.
Bergman
on September 4, 2019 at 12:25 am
Beautiful. But it sucks for anyone on the trolley.
Some people believe that all killing is murder. To them, a woman fighting off a rapist has committed a greater crime than the rapist intended if she kills him in the process. Even if that was the only way not to be raped, even if he intended to kill her after, even if he had already killed other women, none of that matters — if she kills him she’s as bad as he is, possibly worse than he is.
The same thinking, scaled down a bit, leads to kids being punished for fighting in school if they passively got punched and never fought back.
Yes, and those people are literally* too stupid to live on their own. They only survive because our society chooses to protect them.
Well, OK, not ALL of them are that stupid – some are simply amazingly naive. That at least can be remedied.
* “Literally” as in “non-figuratively”, and also “non-intended-to-be-insulting-ly” – literally.
The legal term in my jurisdiction and a few others I can think of is Justifiable Homicide by Reason of Self-Defence. Self-Defence, in this case includes protecting others. This could be considered similar to the outcome of the trolley dilema*. Do you act to save two people, even though doing so in this manner kills two of the perpetrators that you do not realize were in the path of your action to save the others.
* You are standing beside a switch control on a trolley line when you notice an out of control trolley car coming down the tracks towards you. As you look down the tracks beyond your switch you see a group of people on the track that if you do nothing will be hit and probably killed by the runaway trolley car. If you pull the switch, the trolley will be diverted to another track where a single person is standing, who would be killed by the out-of-control car. What should you do and why?
If you shoot at a wall, not realizing that others are standing behind it, and the bullets go through the wall and kill the people on the other side, that could be considered Reckless Endangerment causing Death, a clause of Second-degree murder, depending on your intent.
Yes, but if the people on the other side were shooting at you (or someone else) and it would thus be legal to shoot them in self-defense, doing so by accident doesn’t suddenly make it a crime again.
Self defense is an active claim against incrimination for homicide. If the claim is valid, it *shouldn’t* matter that it was an accidental homicide, and the chances of a jury finding you guilty for doing it accidentally (when they wouldn’t for doing it on purpose) is stupendously low.
Re: Trolley problem
A recent SSDD cartoon suggested jamming the switch midway, causing a derailment and saving everybody down-track.
Beautiful. But it sucks for anyone on the trolley.