The "Some people just need killin'" defense

[John Bentley]

I just read an article in my local paper, and I just think something is wrong, here. The main facts are pretty straightforward. One man is shot, the shooter is arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. However, the details are more interesting:
The shooter, last name Jones, thrust himself into the whole situation by trying to break up a fight between the murdered man, last name White, and another man. White subsequently threatened to kill Jones and his family. Jones left the scene and returned with a gun and ended up shooting White in the head from 50 yards away as White was driving away from the scene. The details are a bit sketchy in the paper, but apparently Jones knew White and was scared of him. White had a tremendously long arrest record - over 170 arrests - including armed robbery and assault. Additionally, White was out on bail for only a week after being arrested in the kidnapping and rape of a 14 year old girl. Jones maintains that he shot White out of fear for his and his family's safety.

Now assuming that the details of White's criminal history are accurate, he should not even be walking around outside of prison. The justice system had obviously failed in its job of removing a very dangerous man from society. If I had known anything about this White dude and he had threatened me and my family, I would have taken his threats very seriously as well. I would also have had very little confidence that the law would do anything about him, since they obviously had done very little in the past.

I'll admit I'm leaning toward a justified killing here. Anyone else?

[JoeEllison]

Not justified, but certainly there seem to be mitigating circumstances that should have at least swayed the court when it came to sentencing.

[Phil]

May be justified, but it was still premeditated and illegal.

He might have gotten law enforcement involved the moment he broke up the fight.

[Fnord]

He might have gotten law enforcement involved the moment he broke up the fight.


He might have gotten law enforcement involved to break up the fight, as well!

[Roboramma]

May be justified, but it was still premeditated and illegal.

He might have gotten law enforcement involved the moment he broke up the fight.
And then what? Could law enforcement protect him and his family from this man? Maybe if they put him in prison, at least until he gets out...

Mind you, I agree that what he did was illegal, and I don't see how the legal system could be changed to deal with this sort of situation.

[John Bentley]

I guess my main question is whether or not there is such as thing as proactive self defense. Do you have to wait until someone is pointing a gun at you or your family before you are justified in using deadly force, or are you justified in using deadly force when confronted with an extremely credible threat of future violence against yourself or your family?

[John Bentley]

Oops. Double post

[cloudshipsrule]

I'm with slingblade justice on this one.

[Phil]

And then what? Could law enforcement protect him and his family from this man? Maybe if they put him in prison, at least until he gets out...

Mind you, I agree that what he did was illegal, and I don't see how the legal system could be changed to deal with this sort of situation.

I don't know. I'm not exceptionally familiar with the law, but I would guess that fighting would be a violation of parole, and could possibly put the guy back in the pokey. However, I couldn't guess as to how long he'd go away for parole violation.

And as Fnord pointed out, if he let law enforcement handle it from the beginning, he wouldn't have to worry about retaliation.

It just seems he needlessly put himself in a bad situation, and then made the situation even worse by shooting the guy.

[wahrheit]

... shooting White in the head from 50 yards away as White was driving away from the scene.

Not much detail on the story here, but shooting someone in the head while he is driving away from the scene sounds like murder to me.

[fuelair]

But White did need killing - it is pretty clearly one of those local bully situations - and I still admire strongly the town in which a number of it's citizens surrounded the bully and he was shot by someone but no one saw anything.

FBI or such worked the case for years!

[John Bentley]

I don't know. I'm not exceptionally familiar with the law, but I would guess that fighting would be a violation of parole, and could possibly put the guy back in the pokey. However, I couldn't guess as to how long he'd go away for parole violation.

And as Fnord pointed out, if he let law enforcement handle it from the beginning, he wouldn't have to worry about retaliation.

It just seems he needlessly put himself in a bad situation, and then made the situation even worse by shooting the guy.

He wasn't out on parole, he was out on bail.

Law enforcement seemed to be giving this guy a pass. He'd been arrested over 170 times. Besides, the paper doesn't give any details about the fight that Jones broke up. I would assume it was a minor altercation, or the paper would have given the juicy details. Are you saying that citizens should never attempt to handle minor altercations on their own? Or that maybe no one should help anyone else out, just call the police and hope they respond in time?

[John Bentley]

Not much detail on the story here, but shooting someone in the head while he is driving away from the scene sounds like murder to me.

That was exactly the prosecution's case. I agree that it was not immediate self defense, but my question is whether the obviously credible threat to this man's future health and the safety of his family justified the man's actions.

[Whack01]

I just read an article in my local paper, and I just think something is wrong, here. The main facts are pretty straightforward. One man is shot, the shooter is arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. However, the details are more interesting:
The shooter, last name Jones, thrust himself into the whole situation by trying to break up a fight between the murdered man, last name White, and another man. White subsequently threatened to kill Jones and his family. Jones left the scene and returned with a gun and ended up shooting White in the head from 50 yards away as White was driving away from the scene. The details are a bit sketchy in the paper, but apparently Jones knew White and was scared of him. White had a tremendously long arrest record - over 170 arrests - including armed robbery and assault. Additionally, White was out on bail for only a week after being arrested in the kidnapping and rape of a 14 year old girl. Jones maintains that he shot White out of fear for his and his family's safety.

Now assuming that the details of White's criminal history are accurate, he should not even be walking around outside of prison. The justice system had obviously failed in its job of removing a very dangerous man from society. If I had known anything about this White dude and he had threatened me and my family, I would have taken his threats very seriously as well. I would also have had very little confidence that the law would do anything about him, since they obviously had done very little in the past.

I'll admit I'm leaning toward a justified killing here. Anyone else?


He shot an unarmed man in the back of the head, as he was driving away. I'd personally have called the police first. Then considered what the next step was if they let him off. Life sentence is way too much. However, as I don't know the situation the words were said in that could have been a heat of the moment outburst by the other guy. Then again if the "law" had done the right thing and locked the dude up after he raped the 14 year old this wouldn't be an issue.

If the cops had done nothing he'd have an excuse but in Arkansas
"Terroristic threatening may be punished by a prison sentence up to six years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(2)."*

With his history and a phone call that dude would have been locked up for awhile in my state just by the words alone, not even taking the assault into consideration.


* http://courts.state.ar.us/unpublished/2000b/20000920/ar991453.html

[Phil]

He wasn't out on parole, he was out on bail.

Law enforcement seemed to be giving this guy a pass. He'd been arrested over 170 times. Besides, the paper doesn't give any details about the fight that Jones broke up. I would assume it was a minor altercation, or the paper would have given the juicy details. Are you saying that citizens should never attempt to handle minor altercations on their own? Or that maybe no one should help anyone else out, just call the police and hope they respond in time?


No, I'm not saying that at all. And I apologize for misreading the opening post, thinking he had been paroled.

I just think, in this case, the guy put himself in a bad situation (possibly needlessly, if it was a minor altercation), and then made it worse by killing the guy.

You mentioned that Jones knew White, so presumably he knew what kind of man he was, he possibly even knew White was out on bail for a violent crime. If you happenned upon a guy you knew to be a violent criminal in a minor altercation, would you even bother getting involved? And if you happened upon a guy you knew to be a violent criminal in an major altercation, would you jump in, or would you call the police?

[Whack01]

Also what did the prosecution argue? that sounds like the defenses argument.

It could be that the man was getting beaten by two guys & tried to run away. Breaking up a fight and jumping into a fight are hard things to distinguish through observers. Were there additional witnesses or do we only have the word of witnesses who would plainly be biased against the deceased?

Also if one guy is trying to break up a fight by holding you back while another guy beats on you... well that's not exactly breaking up a fight.

[Buckaroo]

If the cops had done nothing he'd have an excuse but in Arkansas
"Terroristic threatening may be punished by a prison sentence up to six years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(2)."*

With his history and a phone call that dude would have been locked up for awhile in my state just by the words alone, not even taking the assault into consideration.


I loved Cape Fear! And that episode of the The Simpsons, too.

[Whack01]

I loved Cape Fear! And that episode of the The Simpsons, too.

LOL, I didn't even read it just hit CTRL + F to find "terroristic threatening" and copied the quote.

Yeah don't forget the shining :eek:

"He retrieved a meat cleaver with an approximate six-inch blade from the kitchen and chased her until she ran into her bedroom, pulling a telephone with her as she retreated. She locked the door and called a friend; appellant then severed the telephone cord with the cleaver. Appellant chopped on the door with the cleaver."

[Fnord]

A man is dead + The murderer is in prison = Justice has been served.

Seems straight-forward to me.

:idea: An idea...

If some people truly believe that the victim 'needed killing' then why don't they get together, hire a lawyer, and appeal the conviction on behalf of the murderer?

That seems to me to be a more practical solution than simply posting arguments on someone else's website.

[wahrheit]

That was exactly the prosecution's case. I agree that it was not immediate self defense, but my question is whether the obviously credible threat to this man's future health and the safety of his family justified the man's actions.

No, in my opinion, it doesn't.

Also, it was not only "not immediate self defense", it was no self defense at all.

Had the bad guy been running up to the shooter's house with a gun in his hand and screaming death threats, or had he broken in in the night, then yes.

"Obviously credible threats" can not justify a preemptive killing.

[John Bentley]

A man is dead + The murderer is in prison = Justice has been served.

Seems straight-forward to me.

:idea: An idea...

If some people truly believe that the victim 'needed killing' then why don't they get together, hire a lawyer, and appeal the conviction on behalf of the murderer?

That seems to me to be a more practical solution than simply posting arguments on someone else's website.

Your opinion is noted. However, I was actually more interested in using this specific case to ask a more general question. Does self defense always have to be a reaction to an immediate threat, or can it be preemptive?

[John Bentley]

No, in my opinion, it doesn't.

Also, it was not only "not immediate self defense", it was no self defense at all.

Had the bad guy been running up to the shooter's house with a gun in his hand and screaming death threats, or had he broken in in the night, then yes.

"Obviously credible threats" can not justify a preemptive killing.

So how immediate does the threat have to be? In your example, the guy hasn't pointed a gun at anyone, he's just waving it around and screaming threats. Can I then shoot him from my window and be justified in that? For instance, you don't know if his gun is loaded, or if it's even a real gun.

[Ausmerican]

He hit the guy in the head from 50 yards away in a moving car? Now, you dont say what kind of gun he went and got or wether it was day or night but with that kind of shooting I dont see why he was feeling threatened by the guy.

[wahrheit]

(double post)

[wahrheit]

(pouble dost)

[wahrheit]

So how immediate does the threat have to be? In your example, the guy hasn't pointed a gun at anyone, he's just waving it around and screaming threats. Can I then shoot him from my window and be justified in that? For instance, you don't know if his gun is loaded, or if it's even a real gun.

That's why I added the "or had he broken in in the night" part to my post, trying to clarify that I would ask for a direct, very immediate threat to justify a shooting.

If it was nothing but a weird guy running around in the street with a gun in his hand, it would not be justified to shoot him from your window.

[John Bentley]

He hit the guy in the head from 50 yards away in a moving car? Now, you dont say what kind of gun he went and got or wether it was day or night but with that kind of shooting I dont see why he was feeling threatened by the guy.

According to the paper, it was a .357 Magnum, and he hit him in the forehead. Incredibly lucky or incredibly good. You decide.

I guess I'm interested in this because my family received a death threat from a credible source in the recent past. I never did anything other than improve my aim from good to really good on moving targets, and the threat came to nothing in the end. However, in my case, the threat would have been carried out from fire bomb range or sniper range. I've always wondered about it since that time, and this story brought it back to mind.

[Fnord]

Does self defense always have to be a reaction to an immediate threat, or can it be preemptive?


"A direct and immediate threat" according to my lawyers.

"Direct" means that the threat is not implied, inferred, or vague in any way. Otherwise the nature of the threat may be left open to interpretation.

"Immediate" means right here and right now.

Thus, someone must point a weapon at someone and state that they are going to kill them, OR attack the intended victim with a weapon without stating the intent to do so.

Note also that the term "Weapon" is limited to physical weapons, not words or images.

Stating intent to kill someone who is not present may be direct, but it is not immediate. Threatening someone with death without making an actual attempt is also a direct, but not immediate, threat. These are called "Communicating a threat."

Firing a weapon is an immediate, but not a direct threat, as long as the weapon is not discharged in the direction of any potential victim. "Illegal possession and discharge of a firearm" is about all they can be charged with.

Thus, firing a shotgun at the back of someone's head from 50 yards while they are running away is murder because the victim is not posing a threat that was both direct and immediate, in spite of any perceived or potential threat such a victim may have caused.

There are so many other variations as to keep lawyers gainfully employed, jurors empaneled, and our courts full for a very long time.

[John Bentley]

"A direct and immediate threat" according to my lawyers.

"Direct" means that the threat is not implied, inferred, or vague in any way. Otherwise the nature of the threat may be left open to interpretation.

"Immediate" means right here and right now.

Thus, someone must point a weapon at someone and state that they are going to kill them, OR attack the intended victim with a weapon without stating the intent to do so.

Note also that the term "Weapon" is limited to physical weapons, not words or images.

Stating intent to kill someone who is not present may be direct, but it is not immediate. Threatening someone with death without making an actual attempt is also a direct, but not immediate, threat. These are called "Communicating a threat."

Firing a weapon is an immediate, but not a direct threat, as long as the weapon is not discharged in the direction of any potential victim. "Illegal possession and discharge of a firearm" is about all they can be charged with.

Thus, firing a shotgun at the back of someone's head from 50 yards while they are running away is murder because the victim is not posing a threat that was both direct and immediate, in spite of any perceived or potential threat such a victim may have caused.

There are so many other variations as to keep lawyers gainfully employed, jurors empaneled, and our courts full for a very long time.

Thanks, Fnord. Very cogent explanation.

[ladida]

I don't think that the OP meant to ask whether the guy was legally guilty of murder; the clear answer to that question is "Yes" (and ignoring mitigating circumstances for sentencing purposes). Instead, I believe that he intended to ask the moral question, ie., "Is murder (as legally defined) ever justified?" Clearly, as a society we must have laws against murder which are enforced; however, even if we can agree that the legal question has been decided, that still leaves open the moral one.

[John Bentley]

I don't think that the OP meant to ask whether the guy was legally guilty of murder; the clear answer to that question is "Yes" (and ignoring mitigating circumstances for sentencing purposes). Instead, I believe that he intended to ask the moral question, ie., "Is murder (as legally defined) ever justified?" Clearly, as a society we must have laws against murder which are enforced; however, even if we can agree that the legal question has been decided, that still leaves open the moral one.

Almost right. What I originally intended was to use the news report to ask the question of whether murder is morally justified when you or your family receive a death threat from someone who's criminal past gives you every right to expect him to carry out his threat. That's a little more specific, and more in line with my own experience with death threats.

In Fnord's legal explanation, this would be considered a direct threat, but not an immediate one. Thanks again, Fnord, for the explanation of legal terms.

[ladida]

Sorry, didn't mean to get all abstract on ya! Old habit!


But, if we can answer the abstract question with "Yes", then there is room to discuss particular cases. If the answer to the abstract question is "No", then the answer to your original question is, simply, no. No reason to discuss particulars.

IMO, the answer to the abstract question is "Yes"; and this is where the whole conversation gets interesting.;)

[ladida]

What the ???

Double post!

[Fnord]

But, if we can answer the abstract question with "Yes", then there is room to discuss particular cases. If the answer to the abstract question is "No", then the answer to your original question is, simply, no. No reason to discuss particulars.


There is always room to discuss the particulars of specific cases, but the proper venues for such discussions are a court of law or a law-school classrom.


IMO, the answer to the abstract question is "Yes"; and this is where the whole conversation gets interesting.;)


In the abstract, "Yes" is as valid an answer as "No." The love of such ambiguity is the root of all woo.

In more specific terms, such as those used in the OP, the question(s) as stated demand an answer that is relevant to the entire context of the original question(s) - without omissions, additions, or modifications.

Thus, the answer becomes an unequivocable "Yes" or "No," but not both.

[ladida]

There is always room to discuss the particulars of specific cases, but the proper venues for such discussions are a court of law or a law-school classrom.





In the abstract, "Yes" is as valid an answer as "No." The love of such ambiguity is the root of all woo.

In more specific terms, such as those used in the OP, the question(s) as stated demand an answer that is relevant to the entire context of the original question(s) - without omissions, additions, or modifications.

Thus, the answer becomes an unequivocable "Yes" or "No," but not both.

I have no idea what this means? There is a clearly stated question: "Is murder (as legally defined) ever morally justified?" This question can be rationally argued and a conclusion can be reached; ie., an answer, "yes" or "no", nothing "wooish" about it. Perhaps you're not familiar with theoretical ethics? This, "In the abstract, "Yes" is as valid an answer as "No"" is simply wrong.



Not all discussions of particular ethical questions require courts and juries; or even, gasp, laws. You're still conflating the two questions; law does not necessarily encompass ethics.

[ladida]

And just to clarify a bit,


"In the abstract, "Yes" is as valid an answer as "No"" .

Arguments are valid or invalid, not conclusions.

[quixotecoyote]

My grandfathers advice from his time in WWII seems appropriate here:Don't pick fights. If you have to fight, make sure you don't let him walk away afterwards. It's only self-defense if the other guy can't say otherwise."In this case I'd say if Jones knew the guy, knew he was dangerous, and knew he needed to be stopped from hurting the third party, he needed to kill him in the fight, not afterwards.

[Fnord]

Arguments are valid or invalid, not conclusions.

Premises #1: This Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity), states that validity (and by implication, invalidity) may be applied to statements. I refer to the contents of the first paragraph, which state "The term validity as it occurs in logic refers generally to a property of deductive arguments, although many logic texts apply the term to statements as well (a statement is a sentance that “has a truth value,” i.e., that is either true or false)."

Premise #2: A conclusion is a statement.

Conclusion: A conclusion may be valid or invalid.

Your witness...

:D

[ladida]

UH - I don't use Wiki for much, for obvious reasons, but if it's saying that logic texts say that statements can be valid or invalid they're wrong! Statements are T or F, not valid or invalid. If there are texts that say differently, I'd like a cite for them.

[Fnord]

UH - I don't use Wiki for much, for obvious reasons, but if it's saying that logic texts say that statements can be valid or invalid they're wrong! Statements are T or F, not valid or invalid. If there are texts that say differently, I'd like a cite for them.

Silly me, I should have done so already, although I have only one text with me at the moment:

"Deductive Logic (http://books.google.com/books?id=ywNo3rl4tS4C&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=logic+valid+statement&source=web&ots=CjdYUsZ36r&sig=llTCvjwQriFRGnsYoS4WB6rTskg)" By Warren D. Goldfarb (http://forums.randi.org/Warren D. Goldfarb) (2 separate links)
(Published 2003 by Hackett Publishing, Logic, 224 pages, ISBN 0872206602)

Page 47 reads:

B. Logical Assesment

We may also speak of valid statements, as well as schemata. A statement is valid if it can be schematized by a valid schema. Actually, to be more explicit we call such statements truth-functionally valid, to mark the fact that the schematization at issue is truth-functional (rather than the more intricate kinds we shall investigate later on). Truth-functionally valid statements are in a sense trivially true, for they give us no information about the subject matter of which their constituent statements speak. The truth-functionally valid statement

"If IBM shares are going to rise and Microsoft shares are going to fall, then IBM shares are going to rise"

tells us nothing aboit the stock market; any other statements could replace "IBM shares are going to rise" and "Microsoft shares are going to fall", and the result would still be true. A truth-functionally valid statement is a logical truth: it is true purely by dint of its truth-functional structure, insofar as every statement that shares that strucure is likewise true.

(I could provide more citations once I get home.)

Again, your witness...

:D

[ladida]

OK- got out the old Oxford companion and did indeed find that some propositions can be valid:

"Propositions which are semantically valid, ie., are true under any alternative interpretation of the non-logical rules.

In a formal uninterpreted system of logic a derivation is (syntacticaly) valid where it is in accordance with specified axioms or rules.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Hombrich, t., ed.

Now, I admit I'm a bit rusty, but the only example of this definition I can think of would be a tautologous statement, eg., A=A. If anyone else can give another that would be great.

[ladida]

We cross posted! And I must say that I like your cite better than mine. But, anyway, still seems as if it's only tautologies that can be categorized as valid. So, any conclusion (staement) that imparts information is still only capapble of being T/F, not valid/invalid. And the conclusions that impart information are the ones that are interesting, A=A isn't a claim (and, please, no metaphysical discussion of identity, I don't think I could take it!).

[ladida]

Well, crap! Can't spell, can't type. I believe I'm a bit more than "a little bit rusty":D!!

[John Bentley]

My grandfathers advice from his time in WWII seems appropriate here:In this case I'd say if Jones knew the guy, knew he was dangerous, and knew he needed to be stopped from hurting the third party, he needed to kill him in the fight, not afterwards.

He didn't have his gun with him at the time.

But seriously, as far as I can tell from the newspaper article, quixotecoyote's grandfather stated the prosecution's case in a nutshell. The case clearly seems to fall into the "direct but not immediate threat" category outlined by Fnord. I now understand the advice given to me by a law enforcement friend I consulted about the threat to my family. His advice was that if the scumbag who threatened me and my family stepped onto my property, shoot him from a distance and then drag him into the house. At the time, I thought he was kidding. Guess not.

[Dorian Gray]

Jones knew White and was scared of him. This says it all to me. If I was scared of someone, I wouldn't go near them, much less break up a fight.

It was premeditated, and the guy should go to jail. Should White be in jail right now? Sure.

Also, I see this thread has followed Dorian's Law, which is "All forum arguments devolve into etymological/semantic arguments."

[fuelair]

So how immediate does the threat have to be? In your example, the guy hasn't pointed a gun at anyone, he's just waving it around and screaming threats. Can I then shoot him from my window and be justified in that? For instance, you don't know if his gun is loaded, or if it's even a real gun.
Fortunately, in Florida we can! (Sort of - we have to feel threatened - and I usually feel threatened if an unknown person is waving a gun around in my general vicinity)(and I would happily announce in a loud voice before firing that I feel threatened).

[ladida]

Also, I see this thread has followed Dorian's Law, which is "All forum arguments devolve into etymological/semantic arguments."

I disagree that fnord's and my discussion involved the entymology of words. And yes, it did involve semantics to a certain degree. However, semantics are important for framing an argument; if no one can agree on the definitions of terms, then there's no point in having a discussion.

This says it all to me. If I was scared of someone, I wouldn't go near them, much less break up a fight.

It was premeditated, and the guy should go to jail. Should White be in jail right now? Sure.

And, BTW, you're also conflating law with ethics.

[Roboramma]

This says it all to me. If I was scared of someone, I wouldn't go near them, much less break up a fight. I hope I would, depending on the nature of the fight.

[Roboramma]

And as Fnord pointed out, if he let law enforcement handle it from the beginning, he wouldn't have to worry about retaliation. Sometimes, though, there's not time to wait for law enforcement to arrive. But, obviously we don't know that the fight needed breaking up all that urgently.

As for this specific case - chances are the guy did something stupid and it ended up with someone dead. On the other hand the principle - that there are situations where killing someone premptively is justified - is one that I consider valid.
But whether or not it would be a good idea to incorporate that in to the legal system? I don't think so.

[Irony]

It seems that the entire purpose of a jury by your peers is to handle cases like this where what is legal and what is right are two different things. Of course, the courts have effectively eliminated the entire jury by peers process by allowing the lawyers far too much power over who sits on the jury.

Should the law be changed to allow this type of action? No.
Should the jury have nullified the charges in this particular case? Yes.

[Crossbow]

He didn't have his gun with him at the time.

But seriously, as far as I can tell from the newspaper article, quixotecoyote's grandfather stated the prosecution's case in a nutshell. The case clearly seems to fall into the "direct but not immediate threat" category outlined by Fnord. I now understand the advice given to me by a law enforcement friend I consulted about the threat to my family. His advice was that if the scumbag who threatened me and my family stepped onto my property, shoot him from a distance and then drag him into the house. At the time, I thought he was kidding. Guess not.

If I may add my bit ...

The law does permit one to use deadly force in order to protect their own life and/or the life of someone else.

In this case, the shooting occurred after the fight was over and while the person who was killed was leaving the area. Therefore, since no one was immediate danger of getting killed, then I would have to say that this is not a case of justified homicide.

I hope this helps!

[ladida]

It seems that the entire purpose of a jury by your peers is to handle cases like this where what is legal and what is right are two different things.

Should the law be changed to allow this type of action? No.
Should the jury have nullified the charges in this particular case? Yes.

My emphasis.


At the risk of repeating myself, I must point out that this is the exact distinction I was pointing out; ie., what is legal/illegal is not necessarily what is right/wrong. I must admit that I'm a bit baffled as to why this is a difficult distinction to grasp.

[2plus2equals4]

Assuming the facts are true as they are presented, this guy is in prison for acting on a threat that he believed to be credible.. Isn't that what George W. Bush did in launching the war in Iraq. The threat was credible at the time, no?

SURE! Both men could have handled their situations differently. But they didn't. Both actions were pre-emptive. And both were criminal. The only difference is this guy only killed ONE person, and is now in prison whereas Bush's drawl will echo through history and there will be no justice.

To use the method of death in this story as a metaphor, is it not true that USA shot Iraq in the head from behind? What I mean is, if this was murder, isn't that as well?

yes this is a rhetorical post and I don't expect a debate on the war here. Let's get back on topic.

What is justifiable homicide? Is it only applicable when the situation of danger is now and present?

[Diagoras]

In my opinion, this doesn't count as self-defense. Au contraire, I think White would have been perfectly justified in killing Jones here had he noticed Jones pointing the gun at him and had he had the opportunity to shoot back.

If you're concerned about your local law enforcement agency being ineffective, be a responsible citizen and try to do something about it, or else move to a place where the police do their job. It's no excuse for murder.

[OMGturt1es]

On the other hand the principle - that there are situations where killing someone premptively is justified - is one that I consider valid.


agreed entirely.

whether this specific case was one of justified pre-emptive self defense requires far more detail than is at our disposal. i think that it is quite easy to judge the actions of others from our comfy arm chairs, as we can easily assume the worst, or best, of others. our conclusions that depend on such conjecture, however, are simply meaningless.

i'd certainly be interested if anyone-- err, obviously just those less lazy than i-- is willing and able to provide further detail on this specific case.