Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nilik]

btw, are we discussing the morality or the legality of the boys actions?

for the second: you can either argue that he acted out of self defence or was not capable of mentally grasping the consequences of his actions

I think I'd argue both, to be honest. I hope that kid gets a good lawyer 

[Jerick]

btw, are we discussing the morality or the legality of the boys actions?

for the second: you can either argue that he acted out of self defence or was not capable of mentally grasping the consequences of his actions

The first argument doesn't actualy apply. It must be a credible immediate threat of equal level to the force applied in defense to justify self defense. It's not legaly self defense in a situation where someone made it clear they where going to try and kill you in the next month and you kill them first. Nor is it self defense for say an abused wife who rightly fears her husband will kill her to act first, unless there is an immediate credible threat. The self defense argument actualy applies in much fewer situations than people think it does.

Diminished responsibility is exactly the right defense here however. The kid is young inexpirenced in the world and pretty much only seen the ways of violence used as a problem solver.

[GlyphGryph]

Does that mean if someone kidnapped and was, say, keeping you locked up in his basement, killing him to escape would NOT count as self-defense?

Surely there's got to be some legal escape clause for that sort of situation?

[Jerick]

Does that mean if someone kidnapped and was, say, keeping you locked up in his basement, killing him to escape would NOT count as self-defense?

Surely there's got to be some legal escape clause for that sort of situation?

Necessity is a tough legal doctrine to get in your favour, but it would clearly apply here.

No it wouldn't, unless he starts torturing you or a reasonable person would assume he's about to torture you then the immediate threat is esclated to the level where killing would be considered self defense. Killing someone to escape just false imprisionment would be ilegal, but assualt would be considered on the same level so self defense would apply if you attack or injure him. In other words it's okay to fight your way out of false imprisionment unless the conditions could be considered torture or you're about to be tortured then it's okay to kill to escape.

[Nadaka]

most kidnappings end in death.

[PanH]

No it wouldn't, unless he starts torturing you or a reasonable person would assume he's about to torture you then the immediate threat is esclated to the level where killing would be considered self defense. Killing someone to escape just false imprisionment would be ilegal, but assualt would be considered on the same level so self defense would apply if you attack or injure him. In other words it's okay to fight your way out of false imprisionment unless the conditions could be considered torture or you're about to be tortured then it's okay to kill to escape.

Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Like with robbery and rape, the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life, justifying the preemptive use of lethal force.

[Leafsnail]

Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?

You're changing what he said in a weird way.  What he's actually saying is that you shouldn't intentionally kill them.

[Jerick]

Which means if I'm kidnapped (and following your reasoning, anything shorter than murder or attempt, and injuries), I shouldn't do anything that could threaten the live of my aggressor ? That's pretty twisted.
What kind of countries has this sort of laws ?

You're changing what he said in a weird way.  What he's actually saying is that you shouldn't intentionally kill them.

Bingo
Also if any reasonable person would assume that their captor is very shortly about to attempt murder or serious harm on them then that too allows for killing in self defense. Technicaly speaking the false imprisionment doesn't let you kill your captor but;

the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life

does allow the self defense doctrine to apply. Why would they lock you in basement if they weren't about to do something horrible to you?

Two further things; The self defense argument only applies if there is no other reasonable way a reasonable person could escape death or serious harm they believe is about to occour (note that this means that killing in self defense when other options where avaiable but never considered due to upbringing or mental health issues don't count, though there are seperate defenses for those situations namely the aforementioned diminsihed resposibility)

And lastly you'll note I use the term false imprisionment rather than kidnapping. Legaly speaking the only difference between some store security gaurds holding you longer than they're supposed without informing the police and a kidnapper locking you in his basement is the threat of immediate harm that getting locked in a basement carries with it.

[GlyphGryph]

Like with robbery and rape, the frequency of murder in kidnappings makes it a plausible and unknown threat against your life, justifying the preemptive use of lethal force.

IF this stands, then I think there's no question of abuse situation being valid as self-defense. There is a clear plausible and unknown threat against your life and of bodily harm, and even though it is not "imminent" it could happen at any moment and is both inevitable and unavoidable in most situations

And lastly you'll note I use the term false imprisionment rather than kidnapping. Legaly speaking the only difference between some store security gaurds holding you longer than they're supposed without informing the police and a kidnapper locking you in his basement is the threat of immediate harm that getting locked in a basement carries with it.

If that is enough of a justification for a "threat of immediate harm", I don't see why this wouldn't be. We all know the outcome is going to be at best significant physical emotional damage and is all too likely to result in death. Picked my example because it was actually analogous - because I wanted to know whether the fact that pain or death will obviously be coming at /some/ point, and there's no other way out, would that be enough justification for self defense even if the threat isn't /immediate/ but could happen days or weeks from now. There's an implicit (if not explicit) promise of harm in the detention.

If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?

[lorb]

If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?

You can't know for sure there won't be a chance to escape (without killing) prior to the  "gross physical harm", and if such a chance does not arise you can still self-defend when the threat is imminent.

[Jerick]

If it's obvious that they are not only making it so you can't escape, but ARE going to inflict gross physical harm on you at some point in the future, would self-defense apply, even if we don't know exactly when the physical harm would come?

The law in most countries is very specific on this issue and case law backs it up. No the harm has to be immient or you have to suspect with reasonable cause that the harm is immient. Locking someone in a basement is a clear sign of intent to do serious harm and it is reasonable to assume that the very next time you see your captor they may be delivering such harm. Thus it can be said to be an immediate threat. This is not true for abusive husbands, fathers or family members as the courts have ruled many times in many different countries where the abused have killed the abuser. The point of self defense laws are that there is absolutely no other option which is why the law requires you to wait until you are pretty much certain it's going to happen and have no other way out than using force. Killing because someone may kill you in the nebaulous future is not covered by the self defense doctrine you have to wait till it's clear it's going to happen soon because if "do nothing for now" is still a viable (though unpleasant) option then there is still an option other than killing. For self defense to apply you can't be able to wait any longer and need to act to prevent harm. Going back to the kidnapping self defense applies there because most people would think that any chance to attack their kidnapper may be their last chance to prevent the kidnapper visiting serious harm upon them.

In short by immediate I mean it is likely going to happen if you don't do something right then and there.

[Leafsnail]

Has anyone seen the Suzanne Moore transphobia story?  It's not a happy one.

It started with Suzanne Moore writing an otherwise fairly decent and progressive article, but including the line  "We are angry with ourselves for not being happier, not being loved properly and not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual."  But of course she apologized immediately and everything was fi

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yeah, she doubled down and started saying all kinds of ridiculous things on Twitter.

Anyway, the punchline: Julie Burchill, a writer for the generally liberal Guardian/Observer (the paper I generally read) comes out with a staggeringly hateful piece in defense of Moore.  It's been taken off the website now but it can be viewed here
http://blue-burmese.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/transsexuals-should-cut-it-out.html
This is honestly worse than anything I've ever read in the Daily Mail.  The sheer lack of editorial judgment shown in allowing this to be published means I'll probably never buy the Guardian again (not sure what alternatives there are though).

[penguinofhonor]

the stand-off with the trannies. (I know that's a wrong word, but having recently discovered that their lot describe born women as 'Cis' – sounds like syph, cyst, cistern; all nasty stuff – they're lucky I'm not calling them shemales. Or shims.)

oh my god

I think this sums up the entire article perfectly, to be honest. "I have no clue what those trans people are talking about because I haven't attempted to learn anything about them, but I'm going to use my ignorance as a basis to be very angry at them."

We know that everything we have we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.

actually no I think this sums it up better

It's like the white guy getting called out for being sexist, and he goes "What, male privilege? I don't feel privileged. I'm just a hardworking middle class white dude. If I was actually privileged I'd clearly be better off than this."

[Pnx]

Eh... yeah, in the deeper end of feminists there is honestly no short of crazy people... Unfortunately the crazier ones also seem to be the most vocal ones, which I think is what has given feminism a bit of a bad name.

As for the whole issue of poor journalistic standards in print media... yeah, that's also a thing, especially in the UK, there's a running theory that it's caused by the internet out competing the papers, which leads to papers trying to make themselves more sensationalist so that they catch eyes better at the news stands.