Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NoSoup
For those of you questioning the attacker's motives, I can't say I really agree - nor does it really matter what the motives are. If someone were to walk up to you and begin assaulting/robbing you, typically the victims thoughts aren't something along the lines of "hmm... I wonder if he is mistaking me for someone else, or maybe he's just trying to eat..." You have very little time to think, much less ponder the reasoning behind the attack, I'd imagine
|
Yes, of course, you would certainly have less time to think it through on the street. But that's part of the point of asking these questions, so you can determine the moral or legal questions involved ahead of time and have some guide to how you should react if it were to happen.
Anybody seen the Korean film
Oldboy? I just caught it this past weekend and it brings up some excellent ideas about revenge, vengeance, the futility of violence, etc. That person attacking you might very well be justified in attacking you. Are you still entitled to self-defense at that point?
Some posters seem to suggest that it's allright to kill the mugger once he/she starts the actual mugging. Does the mugger still have a right to self-defense from you even after he/she caused the situation?
Would you be justified in shooting a cop who was trying to shoot you even if you started the situation by shooting somebody else, etc.?
Even Hobbes allowed the individual the right to self-defense against the sovereign.