h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No. Although suicide should not I think be banalised, your life is your OWN. I mean you're not "taking it" (as in stealing) it's already yours.

In an issue as difficult as, for instance, abortion: you are taking a life.... under principle 3 (or in exceptional circumstances principle 2). The main difference I make between principle 2 and 3 is that of an individual's perception.

I understand that if your back is literally against the wall, then pretty much anything is justified.

If someone is trying to break into a clearly occupied vehicle in a queue of traffic, I'd suggest there were some grounds for assuming they weren't quite all there, or had the intention of harming the occupant high on their list (unless there was an open briefcase of cash or diamonds sitting on the passenger seat).

"The car, in that situation, is my "personal space" - it is, essentially, me, and if you attack it, you're attacking me."

I think I know what you mean, but that's getting close to the justification for road rage - someone knocks off my wing mirror, I attack them as if the mirror was part of my body.

"Furthermore, I can *see* no reason for getting out of your car except to go and attack the driver you're annoyed with."

What about the case where there has been a minor accident - leaving the scene could be dangerous, as could the assumption that anyone leaving their vehicle is intent on attacking someone else. They may just want to swap insurance details. You can't legally assume they mean you harm, yet you obviously can't rule out the remote possibility.

"To boil it down: I believe that criminals should not be protected by any law *during* the commission of a crime."

That is one point of view, but it doesn't have much to do with self-defence, or where you draw your personal line - your house or car.
The 'commission of a crime' argument would seemingly allow for the lethal attacking of shoplifters or someone stealing plants from a garden. The only way to limit it is either a restriction on the crimes which can result in lethal attack, or some argument of reasonableness.

I *suppose* you could draw the line for preemptive lethality at violent crimes, but you then have to define all burglary as a violent crime. The question is whether any crime where the victim may have even the smallest expectation of future violence should be categorised as violent in itself.

Even in the case where there is direct unprovoked violence - someone picks an argument with someone else in a pub for no reason and starts pushing them, the victim isn't allowed to escalate to deliberate deadly force straight away. If they got in a *lucky* punch and killed the attacker by a fluke, that's one thing, but if they were an expert in umnarmed combat, they'd be in trouble if they knowingly gave someone a lethal blow that wasn't proportionate to the attack they'd suffered or the immediate risk (like if someone was advancing towards them with a broken bottle).

(If you're confident you can get close enough to a burglar to stick a pre-sharpened toothbrush in his eye, maybe you should keep a bottle of chilli sauce by the bed so you can pour it over your hands and then confront your burglar as before, sticking your fingers in his eyes instead of a spike. Very disabling, non-lethal and probably even legal.)

"I understand that if your back is literally against the wall, then pretty much anything is justified."

Then we agree...

"If someone is trying to break into a clearly occupied vehicle in a queue of traffic, I'd suggest there were some grounds for assuming they weren't quite all there, or had the intention of harming the occupant high on their list (unless there was an open briefcase of cash or diamonds sitting on the passenger seat)."

What I keep on my passenger seat is no business of anyone else, and does NOT justify them attacking me or my vehicle to take it off me.

By that logic, a woman who is raped while wearing a short skirt was asking for it.

"I think I know what you mean, but that's getting close to the justification for road rage - someone knocks off my wing mirror, I attack them as if the mirror was part of my body."

That, of course, depends on the circumstances. If a person knocks off my wing mirror because we are both attempting to carefully negotiate a narrow street, and they acknowledge the mistake and wave a "sorry", I'd forgive them instantly. If they failed to wave a "sorry", I'd quietly call them a b*****d and drive on, because the fact they're an ignorant git doesn't change the fact it was an accident. I'd equate it to someone spilling a drink on my in a crowded pub. But if someone DELIBERATELY knocked off my wing mirror, as an assumed preliminary to doing me more damage, I'd take that as I'd take someone THROWING a drink over me in a pub, and act accordingly.

"Furthermore, I can *see* no reason for getting out of your car except to go and attack the driver you're annoyed with."
What about the case where there has been a minor accident - leaving the scene could be dangerous, as could the assumption that anyone leaving their vehicle is intent on attacking someone else. They may just want to swap insurance details."

When a person hit the back of my car, I got out and waited by my rear bumper. I made it clear by my body language that I was waiting for him to approach me, and that I had no malicious intent. I did not move outside my personal space into his. There is no need to. If I hit someone else, I'd have to make a split second judgement as to whether I believed they were going to attack me. I've never done it, and the large space I leave in front of my car in queues means I'm unlikely to... (touch wood...)

"To boil it down: I believe that criminals should not be protected by any law *during* the commission of a crime."
That is one point of view, but it doesn't have much to do with self-defence, or where you draw your personal line - your house or car.
The 'commission of a crime' argument would seemingly allow for the lethal attacking of shoplifters

Only if those shoplifters were endangering the safety of another person. My general principle is that you can only physically attack in protection of personal safety, not protection of property. On the other hand, if a shoplifter takes an object out of a shop without paying, and that action causes the activation of a booby trap which blows off their hand, I don't see why they should have any recourse to law. They stole the object, they were actually in the process of committing a crime, and that action had consequences they did not foresee, but for which THEY are nevertheless directly responsible.

"or someone stealing plants from a garden."

Again, unless someone's personal safety is involved, I don't see any reason for attack. If I saw someone stealing my wheelbarrow or my lawnmower from my garden shed, I'd call the police. I'm not in any danger from them because I have a locked door between me and them. But if they're IN my HOUSE, that's a different matter altogether.

"The only way to limit it is either a restriction on the crimes which can result in lethal attack, or some argument of reasonableness."

How about an argument of responsibility? If you commit a crime, YOU, and only you, are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to you as a result. Don't want to take responsibility? Don't commit a crime.

A *lot* of what I see wrong with society nowadays is down to a refusal of people to take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences.

"I *suppose* you could draw the line for preemptive lethality at violent crimes, but you then have to define all burglary as a violent crime. The question is whether any crime where the victim may have even the smallest expectation of future violence should be categorised as violent in itself."

BREAKING and entering is a violent act. It terrorises those who are in the house at the time. Would you not be scared if you heard a window smash in the middle of the night and heard voices in your house? Of COURSE burglary is a violent crime. Just because the violence is not necessarily committed directly on the body of the victim changes nothing. It is possible to commit assault without laying a finger on someone.

"Even in the case where there is direct unprovoked violence - someone picks an argument with someone else in a pub for no reason and starts pushing them, the victim isn't allowed to escalate to deliberate deadly force straight away. If they got in a *lucky* punch and killed the attacker by a fluke, that's one thing, but if they were an expert in umnarmed combat, they'd be in trouble if they knowingly gave someone a lethal blow that wasn't proportionate to the attack they'd suffered or the immediate risk (like if someone was advancing towards them with a broken bottle)."

Again, I point to responsibility. If you're going to carry out an unprovoked attack on someone in a pub, whether it's a push and shove or a slash with a bottle, it is YOUR responsibility to consider in advance whether they are a martial artist who can kill you with a single blow. Once you go down the route of breaking the law, you should no longer expect the law to protect you.

Why should it matter whether punch is "lucky"? If I'm attacked, and I hit back and kill my attacker, that's HIS problem. HE decided he wanted a fight, not me. He started it, I protected myself. It is not for anyone else to question my judgement in the situation I was in. In my place, they may well have done something different - but I hold that it is entirely down to the victim of an attack what response is appropriate to make them safe. It is nobody else's business to question what they do, up to that point. As I say, the law cuts in if they go beyond making themselves safe - say, kicking the head of an already unconscious assailant. But we're into details...

"(If you're confident you can get close enough to a burglar to stick a pre-sharpened toothbrush in his eye, maybe you should keep a bottle of chilli sauce by the bed so you can pour it over your hands and then confront your burglar as before, sticking your fingers in his eyes instead of a spike. Very disabling, non-lethal and probably even legal.)"

What if your burglar is wearing glasses? The problem is I can't stick my finger, even if it's coated in chilli, up under the base of his skull and into his brain, or through his throat, or into his spine. A chilli-finger () is a terribly specific weapon which really would need you to be extremely lucky *and* proficient in martial arts - in which case you'd not really need the chilli. A toothbrush stilletto, on the other hand, has a multitude of applications available even to the amateur, and would allow an instantly disabling attack from any angle.

H.

I still think "perception" of risk counts for reactions.

If you are a young 6'2" rugby player, you won't percieve much risk if a 70-year old lady (4'9" in her shoes) comes towards you with an evil look in her eye. Her intent may be to kill you with that mini-bazooka she hid in her handbag... but you don't perceive that so you don't panic.

When you rush towards that same old lady (to save her from falling on a banana skin) she might use that well-discussed sharpened toothbrush (or more probably a pepper spray) in her bag because of her perception of risk. Many people would blame YOU for not making your intent clear, for frightening an old lady, .... In other words, you would have to adopt your actions to HER perceptions. Some animals make certain gestures (dogs wag their tail and I think it is monkeys that show their rearends) to influence others' perception of the risk involved in the encounter.

People smile, "look friendly" and so forth. In unexpected situations, where you don't understand the social code, you become more alert. If you're frightened, you might panic, fight, freeze, flee .... but the instinct to survive takes over from any nice social codes you may have had drilled in to you.

(If you haven't read post 100, this probably sounds even more garbage that it is)

I agree completely about the perception of risk being what's important.

The London police shot a man dead in the street near his home for carrying the leg of a coffee table in a plastic bag. The two shooters succesfully pleaded "perception of risk", even though the person was shown very quickly to have been no risk to them AT ALL, and in fact was physically infirm, unable to walk properly or bend down due to a recent surgery for cancer. They nevertheless put a bullet in his head and another in his hand from a range of 15 feet.

Now if that rule is OK for the police force - who seek out trouble, who have guns and the training to use them - why isn't it OK for me, unarmed and minding my own business in my own home?

H.

"He started it" really wouldn't, and shouldn't stand up in court. There exists a concept called "proportionallity", or there should do if I've spelt it right. What would happen when the shop assistant doesn't remove the tag properly and an innocent person gets caught in your booby trap?

I'll point again to the problem they have in America where people accidentally shoot their relatives more often than they shoot burgalars.

Remember, you are not Rambo.

If you've quoted the facts right, then I doubt that anyone would agree that that sort of thing is ok for the police force unless they had an ulterior motive. Police with guns is just asking for trouble really, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If the police don't carry guns, then for the most part the criminals won't either.

"Again, I point to responsibility. If you're going to carry out an unprovoked attack on someone in a pub, whether it's a push and shove or a slash with a bottle, it is YOUR responsibility to consider in advance whether they are a martial artist who can kill you with a single blow. Once you go down the route of breaking the law, you should no longer expect the law to protect you."

Where do you draw the line at lawbreaking?
If you have an accidental coming together with someone and they spill their drink, and they push you to the ground or stamp on your foot, though they've legally committed a minor assault, you don't have the right to retaliate with deadly force.
If you find someone's hand in your pocket on the street, you don't have the right to pull out your sharpened toothbrush and stab them "Err - would you stand still for a minute while I try and locate the right point at the base of your skull"

"What I keep on my passenger seat is no business of anyone else, and does NOT justify them attacking me or my vehicle to take it off me."

I never said it did - just that the likelihood of your person being the target of someone else's attention depends on how likely it is they're after something else. If someone chases a security guard carrying a moneybag up a street, it's pretty likely they're after the money. If they kept chasing him after he dropped the money, it's likely they're after him.

"By that logic, a woman who is raped while wearing a short skirt was asking for it."

No it doesn't. Certainly not in any sense of justifying a crime, which I do not believe I have done at any point in this conversation.

It is clearly the case that the innocent actions of people (whatever their age or gender) can alter the *likelihood* of their being a victim of crime. Amongst them are things like what parts of town they frequent, and at what times, the company they keep, the way they are dressed, but that doesn't excuse the crimes in any way.
Wearing the wrong football colours in the wrong pub after the match might result in someone suffering a beating, and many people may not be surprised at that result whilst still condemning the perpetrators as heartily as anyone else. Nor does wearing an expensive suit in the middle of a rough housing estate excuse or justify a mugging, though it may help to *explain* why a particular person was selected as the victim.

One motivation for joining this conversation is that I strongly believe that someone tackling burglars (unless they somehow knew in advance they were nearly certain to prevail) seriously increases their own chance of injury or death compared to non-agressive alternative actions, and so at best it would be a misguided attempt at self defence, whatever gut instincts may suggest at the time. If someone was confident they were nearly certain to kill or disable a burglar (or burglars) without injury to themselves, they might have a hard time using self-defence as justification, especially if they had *prepared* weapons in advance.
Faced with an increased risk of injury, and a risk of prosecution rising from zero to significant, not going on the attack seems safer. When other loved ones are involved, you also have to consider what happens if you start a fight and someone your care about ends up getting injured.
If maximising safety is your goal, you should at least be prepared to think in advance about which option might be the best one to pursue if the circumstance arises. If you're juggling odds, the small (though admittedly nonzero) risk of someone coming after you once they know they've been discovered has to be balanced against your chances of surviving a fight alive and preferably uninjured.
Even if you consider the first threat and/or the burglary morally justifies you attacking someone, you shouldn't be blinded by that moral decision from considering that it may not be the best one in practice.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. But the fact that you might find yourself in a potentially dangerous situation someday doesn’t give you any special “rights” today.
You will assess the situation and, depending on the type of person you are, you will make certain decisions (whether they are flawed or not is pretty much beyond your control). In high stress situations, the assessment will be very quick and the survival/protection goal will be probably uppermost in your mind. If you are very frightened, you’ll probably skip assessment and just aim for survival/protection.

I assume (hope ! ) that policemen and the like are trained to make assessments in high stress situations, and study flaws in reasoning in this type of situation. I continue you think that if you came downstairs in the middle of the day and saw your horrible neighbour’s 16-year old stealing ice-cream out of your freezer you would not panic or whatever. Waking up to see some huge guy leaning over you in the middle of the night would probably panic you. Your quick assessment of the situation might lead you to remember that the cousin staying with you was known to sleepwalk when he was a child.

Under my principle 3 (just invented after reading a few of the posts): I don’t think your peers/the courts would find many extenuating circumstances if you killed the ice-cream stealing kid but might in the case of the cousin (you yourself would probably never forgive yourself because you know that deep-down you KNEW about the sleep-walking thing).

Killing is not OK. If you have the time/presence of mind/skill/means/whatever to avoid killing, you should avoid killing. If you don't, I think you are in the case of Principle 2 or 3 (depending on the circumstances).

Bon jour, y'all

Since I'm enamored of simplification here's where my head's at: On an individual level killing is justifiable when a person believes he's being attacked, when he can't be sure of getting away from the attacker, and it's up to the victim to determine how much force is necessary to put a stop to the attack, but 'stopping' it must be the goal. It depends on how much a person cares about non-self victims and personal risk assesment to determine whether or not to intervene on someone else's behalf. It's never justifiable to kill someone as a preventative measure until they've taken direct, forceful action towards you.

That last still feels a little hinky to me, because there ARE circumstances where people are being threatened, where they feel fully confident that the potential attacker is capable of hurting them and has intent to do so, and they just don't know when it's going to happen. Do they live their lives being terrorized or take it in their own hands when the law has its hands tied and can't protect them til they've already been harmed?

I think individual principles should extend to group principles if they're valid (keeps it simpler that way )so how do I make those
values work in less 'personal' scenarios?

Bouncy: you obviously don't live in the USA, and I'm not sure you understand the mentality of people who are willing to use force to take what they want. Those people will ALWAYS try to have greater power than their victims. They'll use it as they see fit, and I rather doubt they'll disarm themselves just because the cops don't carry guns.

Bouncy:

"There exists a concept called "proportionallity", or there should do if I've spelt it right. What would happen when the shop assistant doesn't remove the tag properly and an innocent person gets caught in your booby trap?"

Simple: the shop assistant is responsible for the injury. Not even slightly complicated.

"If you've quoted the facts right"

What do you mean, IF? I've given you a link to the reporting of the story on the BBC News website. Where is the potential for error on my part here?

" then I doubt that anyone would agree that that sort of thing is ok for the police force"

Then you're wrong. No charges have been brought against the police who did the shooting. Obviously the authorities DO agree that sort of thing is OK for the police, because if they didn't they'd have sent a message to that effect by trying them in a court.

"unless they had an ulterior motive."

Now you're talking.... conspiracy theory ahoy!

"Police with guns is just asking for trouble really, and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If the police don't carry guns, then for the most part the criminals won't either."

Is it nice on your planet?

H.

Hello MoG (the One who started all this).

Did you see my post 99.
But you've just raised another point : what do the generally law-abiding do when the law can't -- or just doesn't -- protect them ?

Potholer:

"Where do you draw the line at lawbreaking?"

I draw it where the law draws it. Which is to say, it depends on the situation.

"If you have an accidental coming together with someone and they spill their drink, and they push you to the ground or stamp on your foot, though they've legally committed a minor assault, you don't have the right to retaliate with deadly force."

You do if you think your life is in danger, which it could be in some of the pubs I used to drink in...

"If you find someone's hand in your pocket on the street, you don't have the right to pull out your sharpened toothbrush and stab them "Err - would you stand still for a minute while I try and locate the right point at the base of your skull""

Why would you be carrying a toothbrush in the street?

OK - another question. Darren Git, career pickpocket, sticks his filthy mitt in my pocket one Saturday morning and gets a surprise because my pocket is lined with pins and the pins are liberally coated with ricin (remarkably simple to make out of castor oil...). Darren dies a day or two later in hospital.

My fault?

"What I keep on my passenger seat is no business of anyone else, and does NOT justify them attacking me or my vehicle to take it off me."
I never said it did - just that the likelihood of your person being the target of someone else's attention depends on how likely it is they're after something else.

Of what relevance is their target? Am I supposed to be more forgiving and compliant to a mugger who is "only" after my wallet? How do I KNOW he's only after my wallet? How do I know he's not going to stab me once he's got it?

And this is the central point: WHY do you think it is my responsibility to find out? Why do you believe I owe a duty of care to these people?

H.

>Is it nice on your planet?<


I'd like directions and a passport, please. I think I'd find life MUCH simpler there.

I'm not sure there are any planets where everything but everything is simple.

Hi Deni

I saw your post, here it is againPrinciples:

1. It is NEVER -- under any circumstances -- "OK" to kill someone.

2. In an imperfect world, in very specfic circumstances, killing someone is the only thing do to (even though it's not OK).

3. We, the imperfect people, sometimes believe we are in a "Principle No. 2" situation and kill : we will be judged - by our peers and (hopefully) by the courts - according to circumstances and the "reasonableness" of our reactions rather than the "OK-ness" of taking a human life).

4. Civilisation progresses as we find solutions to limit the application of Principle No. 2

5. Believing you have the "right" to take a life is WRONG. Taking a life can only be considered as justified in application of Principle No. 2.<

1) That's why I changed the subject header. Totally in agreement there.

2) Also agreed.

3, 4 and 5)Also true, though I'm not on a mission to change the judicial system today... maybe tomorrow Before I try to do ANYTHING with what I think I need to figure out what that is.

I'm a slow typer and a slower thinker. If I tried to respond to most individual posts I'd still be waaaaaay back in the first twenty. That doesn't mean they don't make an impression, though.

Thanks for helping me out with this thing!

oops. Made a mess of that copy/paste function.

See why I'm not willing to impose my values on others? I'm not even competent to push BUTTONS correctly.

1-5 make sence to me.

My opinion is that a person always has a right to take their own life, but not to kill anyone else unless necesarry to protect their own. Of course, this puts the 3rd law before the 1st.

See post 101 : I agree that you are responsible for your own life. You don't have to take it, it's already yours. Here I meant taking someone else's life.

In my post 74, I discussed the "right" to commit suicide with reference to Ian Brady (someone who tortured and killed children in the UK in the sixties). But it opened up some disturbing questions for me.

I still think that the "never OK" principle should come first.

I'm not sure about the order of the 1st and 3rd, but the Zeroth Law should definately come before either.

Also, I think that the right to suicide extends to stupid behavior--you have the right to drive a car without seatbelts, but you can't try to claim insureance for injuries caused by doing so.