Sunday, December 01, 2013

Can't blame a thug for trying

You can have opposing sides in an encounter both be right- even if one is otherwise wrong.

An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person.  You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt.  I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense.  It would be silly to fault a person for that.

No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed.  No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself.  Not even by violating the same right in others.

It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating.  It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime".  It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway.  If you're going to die, die like a man.

Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.


1 comment:

  1. On the phony, counterfeit law "resisting arrest":

    Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., M.C.J., graduated from Roger Williams University School of Law in 1999, Roger Williams University School of Justice Studies in 2001, and Montana State University-Billings (B.S., Sociology) in 1995. He is a former federal prisoner and founder of the Prison Crisis Project, a not-for-profit law and policy think tank based in Providence, Rhode Island.


    RESISTING ARREST (excerpt)

    The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities. The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.