Abstract
ABSTRACTIn a society marked by liberal gun ownership laws, and an increasingly militarized police force, how should we think about cases where a homeowner shoots a person who has mistakenly knocked on the wrong door, or where a police officer shoots someone who is unarmed? The general tendency – by shooters, courts, and many observers – is to use the framework of self‐defense. However, as I will argue, relying on the framework of self‐defense is inappropriate in these cases, because theories of self‐defensive killing are built up around a very specific type of case, namely, a random, sudden, one‐off encounter between roughly equally matched strangers. When a person who acts in self‐defense has undertaken certain preparations to kill in self‐defense – such as buying a gun, or undergoing certain kinds of training – they transform what would have been defensive violence into offensive violence. But because the self‐defense framework distinguishes only between defensive and aggressive violence, it cannot easily register the unique moral features of offensive violence. Relying on the self‐defense framework, then, produces judgments that are overly permissive of killings by gun owners and police, masking them as self‐defensive when in fact they are much more morally fraught.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.