The US Politics |OT|

[sundin13]

JWeinCom said:

The problem with what you're saying is that self-defense does not mean you're responding to an actual threat.  Self-defense only deals with what was going on in the defendant's head.  Someone can be justified in self-defense even if the other party is not the aggressor.

For instance let's say a man has a girlfriend.  The man has a daughter in college, who the girlfriend does not know about.  The man also hasn't yet told his daughter about his girlfriend.  His wife passed a year ago, and he wasn't sure how his daughter would react to him dating again.

The father's birthday is this weekend.  Daughter comes home on Friday night to surprise her father but he's not home.  She texts him, but as it so happens, his friends took him out on a hunting trip to celebrate the big day.  He texts his daughter telling her this and that he won't be back until Sunday morning.

Meanwhile, the girlfriend bought the father who is a gun collector a shotgun for his birthday.  The gun is unloaded.  At midnight, the girlfriend enters the home with the shotgun in hand through the back door which she knows is usually unlocked.  She intends to leave the shotgun on the father's bed and begins walking up the stairs.  

The daughter hears foot steps.  As she knows her father is not going to be home she is scared.  She picks up a baseball bat she has in her room an opens her door.  As soon as she does she sees the girlfriend with the shotgun in hand.  Panicking, she swings the bat at the girlfriend's head.  The girlfriend drops the gun and says "ouch what the fuck". Then she explains the situation, and the two have a laugh about it.  

Everything worked out.  YAY!  But, suppose the girlfriend was angry about it, and wanted to press charges.  She almost certainly couldn't.  Even though the girlfriend was not the aggressor, and as far as we can tell did nothing wrong, the daughter still had a right to act in self-defense as considering the situation, her belief that she was in danger was reasonable.  Point being, one party being entitled to use self-defense does not mean the other party is necessarily the aggressor.  Not saying this is the same kind of situation, but the question we need to ask is whether the killer was the aggressor, and whether arbery had the right to use self defense really doesn't answer that.  

While I don't disagree with you that there isn't a 1:1 correlation, I do still believe it is illuminating to have the answer to the question at hand, because lawfulness is relevant to self-defense. I was simplifying too much, and I will acknowledge that though.

"And the second question is important, because if the victim is legally justified in using self defense, it essentially brands the shooter as the aggressor. "

This is an incorrect statement on my part.

I do still believe that everything else that I said is accurate though. If Arbery was not legally acting in self-defense, it would bolster the shooter's defense. That is because in relation to self-defense, you must believe that the potential harm you are avoiding will be the result of an unlawful action. The fact that the action was in fact unlawful is beneficial in proving this fact. You stated earlier: "It really doesn't matter whether Arbery was allowed to act in self defense. If someone does something that causes you to fear for your life, you are allowed to shoot him. Even if what they were doing is legal.". This is true, but incomplete, because you if what they were doing is legal, you have to have the reasonable belief that it is not in order to legally act in self defense.

Whether Arbery was justified however does not automatically make the shooter the aggressor. It may imply it, but it does not prove it.

Relevant bit of criminal code:

Self Defense

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force;