How many of these people just wanted to get out of jury duty. I did jury duty a couple years ago and it was entertaining how hard some people tried to appear impartial so they would be excused.
Lawyer - "Do you think people have the right to self-defense?"
Potential juror - "No. If someone shoots at you, it's murder if you shoot back."
I'm not sure you can legally defend yourself in Canada in the event of a life threatening situation. If someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself but don't have the right to cause them death or grievous bodily harm.
Canadian Bill C26
Self-defence against unprovoked assault
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
I read a story about some man swatting at a Raccoon with a broom that almost got 2 years in prison. That's more time than what a rapist or child molester might spend behind bars. There was another story about a Chinese corner store owner who apprehended a thief who had been stealing from him regularly and almost went to prison for it. It's scary proposition when it comes to defending yourself. If you cause any harm to the assailant you will be prosecuted. The law in Canada typically favors the criminal.
What I meant is the system favors the criminal but the public uproar most likely saved the Chinese store owner and the Raccoon man escaped with probation and fines and public shaming. He begged for his life.
Yes. If I recall correctly, it must be in a safe and disassembled (maybe just unloaded). If you have it functional quickly enough to shoot an intruder, then clearly it must have been out of the safe and assembled.
There's an episode of The West Wing where IIRC Donna was contemplating getting out of jury duty by employing something like this tactic. She was told in no uncertain terms by Josh and/or Sam that she would be thrown in jail for contempt if she did.
That does not seem to be the case in the real world, though. Who would have thought that fiction would lie to me.
Josh and Sam struck me as exceptionally principled characters with a strong sense of civic duty. I do think that lying to avoid jury duty is fundamentally wrong, but there could be extenuating circumstances. In any case, it doesn't surprise me that the courts don't have to time or resources to follow up on this sort of thing, especially when it boils down to an opinion or bias in general. Such things must be very hard to prove.
Potential juror - "No. If someone shoots at you, it's murder if you shoot back."
Never attribute to malice.
This is an alarmingly common line of thinking, especially in more progressive areas. Some would prefer to take (what they believe to be) the moral high ground from the grave.
You know what? I find it distasteful how frequently this idea is mocked when it comes up in political conversation. Personally, I can't imagine ever shooting someone to kill, even in self-defense. In fact, "don't kill people" sits almost at the root of my value system, and I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Something tells me you have never found yourself in certain situations, say for example you likely have never been kidnapped by firearm, and until you are placed in such a traumatic situation it's nice to pretend you know how you would act one way or another, but until such time it's truly an untested value.
Sure, it's possible if e.g. there was a hostage situation and somehow I was the only one with a gun. But I would feel no pride and the shame would stay with me for the rest of my life. The cavalierness of "self-defense fetishism" worries me.
I've had to use a shotgun to prevent a carjacker from taking someone's vehicle at gunpoint until the sheriff arrived.
Don't kill people unless required. I don't want to kill someone, ever, if avoidable; but the world we live in leaves us no choice sometimes if someone has made a poor decision.
I have role-played thousands of scenarios with the help of computer games, and watched a large quantity of violent Hollywood movie scenes, so I can easily imagine both killing in self-defense and pre-emptively murdering people that may or may not actually deserve it.
The best I can say is that it would be morally unacceptable for anyone to murder you, specifically--a person who has publicly renounced killing. And because you desire to not kill in your own defense, it is therefore more acceptable for me to kill someone else in your defense.
But doing so would offend your own values, so do I have time to judge whether that is a principle you would die for?
It gets complicated.
Fortunately, the law only deals with what is legal, and not with what is right. Sometimes, breaking the law is the only upright thing to do. If the law says it is still murder to kill in self-defense, then you kill that assailant, and then you take whatever punishment the state dishes out for it--not because it is just, but because you shouldn't fight an adversary that you cannot defeat. Obviously, it is better to live under laws that match your personal principles, but we can't always do that.
Pacifism is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take, but I do not think it could exist without non-pacifists willing to use force to defend those pacifists. And that is why I am not a pacifist myself. Obviously, it would be better all around if everyone could be a pacifist, but that experimental world quickly falls apart whenever anyone goes renegade.
Comments
How many of these people just wanted to get out of jury duty. I did jury duty a couple years ago and it was entertaining how hard some people tried to appear impartial so they would be excused.
Lawyer - "Do you think people have the right to self-defense?"
Potential juror - "No. If someone shoots at you, it's murder if you shoot back."
In Miami it's quite popular to hear jurors say, "judge I don't speak English" to get released when they obviously do.
Except there are places (like Canada) where if you shoot back, this is prima facie evidence that you were violating the safe storage laws.
I'm not sure you can legally defend yourself in Canada in the event of a life threatening situation. If someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself but don't have the right to cause them death or grievous bodily harm.
Canadian Bill C26 Self-defence against unprovoked assault 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
I read a story about some man swatting at a Raccoon with a broom that almost got 2 years in prison. That's more time than what a rapist or child molester might spend behind bars. There was another story about a Chinese corner store owner who apprehended a thief who had been stealing from him regularly and almost went to prison for it. It's scary proposition when it comes to defending yourself. If you cause any harm to the assailant you will be prosecuted. The law in Canada typically favors the criminal.
If Canada actually favoured the criminal you would be saying "went to prison" instead of "almost went to prison".
What I meant is the system favors the criminal but the public uproar most likely saved the Chinese store owner and the Raccoon man escaped with probation and fines and public shaming. He begged for his life.
Even within your own home?
Yes. If I recall correctly, it must be in a safe and disassembled (maybe just unloaded). If you have it functional quickly enough to shoot an intruder, then clearly it must have been out of the safe and assembled.
There's an episode of The West Wing where IIRC Donna was contemplating getting out of jury duty by employing something like this tactic. She was told in no uncertain terms by Josh and/or Sam that she would be thrown in jail for contempt if she did.
That does not seem to be the case in the real world, though. Who would have thought that fiction would lie to me.
Josh and Sam struck me as exceptionally principled characters with a strong sense of civic duty. I do think that lying to avoid jury duty is fundamentally wrong, but there could be extenuating circumstances. In any case, it doesn't surprise me that the courts don't have to time or resources to follow up on this sort of thing, especially when it boils down to an opinion or bias in general. Such things must be very hard to prove.
You mean tried to appear *blatantly biased
Never attribute to malice.
This is an alarmingly common line of thinking, especially in more progressive areas. Some would prefer to take (what they believe to be) the moral high ground from the grave.
You know what? I find it distasteful how frequently this idea is mocked when it comes up in political conversation. Personally, I can't imagine ever shooting someone to kill, even in self-defense. In fact, "don't kill people" sits almost at the root of my value system, and I'm sure it's the same for many others.
Something tells me you have never found yourself in certain situations, say for example you likely have never been kidnapped by firearm, and until you are placed in such a traumatic situation it's nice to pretend you know how you would act one way or another, but until such time it's truly an untested value.
Sure, it's possible if e.g. there was a hostage situation and somehow I was the only one with a gun. But I would feel no pride and the shame would stay with me for the rest of my life. The cavalierness of "self-defense fetishism" worries me.
I've had to use a shotgun to prevent a carjacker from taking someone's vehicle at gunpoint until the sheriff arrived.
Don't kill people unless required. I don't want to kill someone, ever, if avoidable; but the world we live in leaves us no choice sometimes if someone has made a poor decision.
I could bluff it but I don't think I'd pull the trigger.
Hard decision to make. I have a wife and daughter I want to come home to.
You're free to make that decision and quite possibly die for it. Don't attempt to make it for me via legislation.
I have role-played thousands of scenarios with the help of computer games, and watched a large quantity of violent Hollywood movie scenes, so I can easily imagine both killing in self-defense and pre-emptively murdering people that may or may not actually deserve it.
The best I can say is that it would be morally unacceptable for anyone to murder you, specifically--a person who has publicly renounced killing. And because you desire to not kill in your own defense, it is therefore more acceptable for me to kill someone else in your defense.
But doing so would offend your own values, so do I have time to judge whether that is a principle you would die for?
It gets complicated.
Fortunately, the law only deals with what is legal, and not with what is right. Sometimes, breaking the law is the only upright thing to do. If the law says it is still murder to kill in self-defense, then you kill that assailant, and then you take whatever punishment the state dishes out for it--not because it is just, but because you shouldn't fight an adversary that you cannot defeat. Obviously, it is better to live under laws that match your personal principles, but we can't always do that.
Pacifism is a perfectly reasonable moral stance to take, but I do not think it could exist without non-pacifists willing to use force to defend those pacifists. And that is why I am not a pacifist myself. Obviously, it would be better all around if everyone could be a pacifist, but that experimental world quickly falls apart whenever anyone goes renegade.
You're welcome to not defend yourself, but this discussion is about whether the government gets to enforce your ideals with force of their own.