a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by goobster
goobster  ·  2171 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Shooting in self-defense

    I believe my position is the lesser of two evils because it preserves the life and wellness of the person who did not instigate violence.

This is like the mathematician's joke, that begins, "Assuming an infinite plane..."

The man did not just decide to kill a woman motorcyclist for the heck of it, like the guy that killed my friend Yancy. He was triggered by something. Maybe she cut him off. Whatever.

He felt wronged, so he attacked. Was she the "instigator" in his mind? I assume so, because he felt a compelling need to confront her. She headbutted him with her helmet on. Etc...





OftenBen  ·  2171 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    He felt wronged, so he attacked.

This is where the line is. Feeling wronged is not sufficient cause for violence of any variety. Do I wish that we had sufficient technology that he would be incapable of harming your friend regardless of his intent and action without any grievous harm coming to him? Of course I do, but that's not the situation we find ourselves in.

I agree with you on what 'should' be. There should be some way for a physically disadvantaged person to defend themselves in a life or death struggle with a physically advantaged opponent without killing them, but gives attacked party sufficient power to end the confrontation. We aren't there yet. We don't have a tool or weapon like that yet, and until we do, I don't see an alternative way to make things at all close to 'fair' in life or death confrontations like this one.