Is there really a right to self-defense? by Amanda S. Green The fool will be played here by Justin Curmi, he deserves an Oscar! More below. Curmi: “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”
Green: "So, before he even gets into the issue of firearms, he has declared that there is a problem with self-defense because it imposes justice and that is wrong because everyone has the right to a fair trial. I don’t know about Curmi, but I believe a person has the right not to give up her life when in a situation where a reasonable person would believe the only reasonable action is to defend themselves. It would appear Curmi believes we don’t have the right to defend ourselves or others because it might deny the guy trying to harm us the right to a fair trial. But let’s read on. Maybe he’s fooling us and is going to start talking sense soon." Curmi: “Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.” Green: "Or maybe not. Surely he can’t be saying we have to give up our lives, or the lives of our loved ones, in order to insure the person trying to harm us gets a fair trial. Maybe he thinks we all need to live in private cells, with no contact with the outside world except through the internet. Either that or he has never known a victim of violent crime or been one himself. I can imagine no other reasonable explanation for why a grown man – or woman or cabbage – would think it reasonable not to be able to protect oneself from danger." I will give Curmi the award for most tortured logic. A core problem is that the concepts he is bandying about, justice, and right to a fair trial, are concepts which apply to those who have been arrested by people acting on behalf of the state under the color of criminal law. These rights only accrue after the arrest, not before. Curmi gets this cart before the horse. While some dirt bag is shooting up a quickie mart, he has no rights to justice or a fair trial. On the other hand, all people have the God given right to defend themselves, and others from the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, with deadly force, if necessary. Since said dirt bag is acting in a way which clearly creates the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, self defense is one appropriate/legal response. If I act to stop this threat by using a firearm, and it results in the death of said dirt bag, the state will investigate, determine whether I indeed was faced with the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, and, optimistically, act appropriately, by not charging me with a crime. Because said dirt bag was never arrested for these violent crimes, no rights to justice, or a fair trial accrued to him, and accordingly he could not have been "devoid of his or her rights." Curmi doesn't apparently like the idea that people can defend themselves from violent criminals, at least when it comes to firearms. This seems to be some of the most tortured logic I've ever seen. Green does a fine job of pricking his inflated thoughts. I recommend you read the whole article.
Comments
|
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|