The Right to Self Defense

[madanthonywayne]

I have to agree with Bells here.

Hell even food is not a fundamental right.

What's wrong, can't stand to agree with me for long?

As I said above, by Bell's definition, there is no such thing as a fundamental right. But no one ever said you could not be denied a fundamental right. It is childish to think otherwise.

So, then, are you prepared to say there is no fundamental right to life? Or liberty? Or anything? Because that is the implication of what you just said.

If we have the right to life, we have the right to defend it. It is the most fundamental of human rights.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

By definition, something is a "right" only if it cannot be taken away without due process. Therefore by definition every right comes with the corollary right to defend it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Being on the same side as two gun loving conservatives made me realise how shallow my right to self defense is

 

[madanthonywayne]

Being on the same side as two gun loving conservatives made me realise how shallow my right to self defense is

You realize your position is indefensible?

 

[S.A.M.]

I give up! :bawl:

 

[Bells]

If we have the right to life, we have the right to defend it. It is the most fundamental of human rights.

Then you had better start petitioning your Government to end capital punishment.

Because you cannot have a fundamental right to self defense if you believe in capital punishment. The two just do not go together. You cannot set limitations on someone's fundamental rights. You cannot deny someone their fundamental rights.

 

[peta9]

Then you had better start petitioning your Government to end capital punishment.

Because you cannot have a fundamental right to self defense if you believe in capital punishment. The two just do not go together. You cannot set limitations on someone's fundamental rights. You cannot deny someone their fundamental rights.

Ignoring imperfection for a second, fundamentally self-defense is a natural right. It's instinctual and the very reason why that criminal would be on death row facing capital punishment BECAUSE he/she fucked with another's right to life. It's a power struggle, yes. But fundamentally the reasons are still there. It's definitely a natural right to defend oneself whether it can be taken away from you or not is irrevelant. But it's also fundamentally understood that if you try to take another's life, you are treading on another's territory and right to life. This would be in essence a willing gamble in forfeiting your own life by not respecting anothers and forcing another to have to react in their self-preservation or interest. That's how it is.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Then you had better start petitioning your Government to end capital punishment.

Because you cannot have a fundamental right to self defense if you believe in capital punishment. The two just do not go together. You cannot set limitations on someone's fundamental rights. You cannot deny someone their fundamental rights.

YES YOU CAN. You can deny someone of ANYTHING.

I don't know where you get this idea that rights don't exist if they can be taken away. It's absurd. Why do we have government? To secure our rights. They wouldn't need securing if they couldn't be taken away! AND IT IS FOR THAT VERY REASON THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE!!!!! Without that, you have no rights. That's why it's fundamental.

 

[John99]

according to the police, you are allowd to use reasonable force to protect yourself and your family, thats what the british transport police adviced me a couple of weeks ago.

That is basically it. And a good lawyer wont hurt either.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I think the right to self defense is a fundamental right.
Only a comatose person would not defend himself. (Or a suicidal one, but that too is debatable)

No. people do not defend themselves in many situations. We out governed by behavioural set dictated by our brains. They do not always allow for self defense in all individuals.

The jews went mostly (some did try to escape or defend themselves) placidly to their death. Often knowing that they did.

This pattern is repeated time and time in human history.

Self defense is not an automatic reaction or right.

 

[Grantywanty]

Bells, SAM

I can see the philosophical mental fun of getting confused about rights. Ha, ha.

But when it comes down to how you live your lives and react to things, doesn't each and every one of you assume that you have the ________ to respond with physical force to a rapist, for example, even if the guy ends up with a black eye from your fist, for example.
If the state prosecuted you for assault on the rapist - after having found him guilty of attempted rape - would you not feel betrayed by the system and also outraged. Would it not go against your understanding of a fundamental principle we all accept as citizens?

 

[Bells]

YES YOU CAN. You can deny someone of ANYTHING.

I don't know where you get this idea that rights don't exist if they can be taken away. It's absurd. Why do we have government? To secure our rights. They wouldn't need securing if they couldn't be taken away! AND IT IS FOR THAT VERY REASON THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE!!!!! Without that, you have no rights. That's why it's fundamental.

*Sigh*

No need to get nippy madant. Honestly...

Yes you can deny someone of their rights. Yes you can deny someone of their human rights. Doing so means you have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why do you think your country has statutes in place to guarantee you your rights? That is because your country is a signatory of the UN Declaration and it has ratified it, thereby putting it into law. If your government then decided to revoke said laws, it would be taking away your rights, nullifying its acceptance of the Declaration. Self defense in the Declaration applies to States, not individuals. I am not saying you do not have a right to self defense. I am saying that it is not a fundamental right. It is a legal right and defense.

There is a difference.

 

[James R]

Bells has hit the nail on the head, and articulated the position far better than I have.

Self-defence is a right, exercisable under certain well-defined circumstances. But it is not a fundamental human right, because fundamental human rights are inalienable. The fact that people do not have a right to defend themselves in all circumstances means that the right is not a fundamental one.

Now that's absurd. The criminal lost his rights after being found guilty by a jury of his peers by a court of law.

You can't lose an inalienable, fundamental right. To prevent a person from exercising a fundamental human right is (or ought to be) a crime.

 

[Baron Max]

You can't lose an inalienable, fundamental right.

Where did that "fundamental right" come from? Or is just saying it enough for you to accept it, to believe in it? Did God give it to us?

To me, James, all you're doing is making that statement, yet that's all it is ....a statement without any substantiating, supporting evidence or facts.

It seems to me that simply making a statement like that is no different to making the statement the god exists ....and that's the final word, because it's self-proving. Is that how you see it?

To prevent a person from exercising a fundamental human right is (or ought to be) a crime.

So is this, then, only about manmade laws? I mean, how else can something be a "crime" unless someone has enacted a law making it a crime? Or do you think, like your statement above, that just saying it makes it true?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Yes you can deny someone of their human rights. Doing so means you have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh, so it's a man-made law? So if they repel the Universal Declaration, then we're back to being just regular ol' humans? If man can give it, then man can take it away.

So really, in effect, a few men have declared it and approved it, so it's now universally accepted? I'm curious, did all humans accept it, or is it now forced onto all others even if they don't want it or don't like it?

Baron Max

 

[Grantywanty]

Self-defence is a right, exercisable under certain well-defined circumstances.

The circumstances are not well-defined. This is misleading. The principles are well-defined but broadly applicable to a wide range of not defined situations.

But it is not a fundamental human right, because fundamental human rights are inalienable. The fact that people do not have a right to defend themselves in all circumstances means that the right is not a fundamental one.

Freedom of movement within a state can be restricted. Parolees, for example.
Presumption of innocence - only in court. Police can determine guilt for all practical purposed and shoot certain people. In fact, the rest of us can.
Freedom from being treated in a degrading manner is also limited. Being asked to dress like a chicken and hand out fliers, for example.
Free speech can be limited by courts (gag orders), public safety concerns, national security issues, and by contract - and a lot of coercion can go into those contracts. The Insider is a great film about how one's freedom of speech can be limited. Sure, he did speak in the end, and lost his family, health and a lot of time in the process.
Rights to assemble are limited all the time by courts, local governments and police.

I think the fact that it is not included in the Bill of Rights is that it is even more obvious than the principles set forth there. EVERY culture and country in the world allows self-defensive actions in relation to the violence of others. It is more fundamental. What the Bill of rights was doing was extending the realms of rights. The court system in the US for example has always recognized the right to self-defense. It has moved the boundaries around, but this is also true for freedom of speech. Public safety concerns, slander, even noise regulations and laws around incitement to riot can be seen as limitations on this right. Further every company in the US will restrict the freedom of speech of its employees and many of these restrictions will be upheld by the courts: company intellectual properties, internal documents can be off limits, expressing opinions about employers, the company, the products and services, especially in public forums can be punished by the company, often without legal redress.

You can't lose an inalienable, fundamental right. To prevent a person from exercising a fundamental human right is (or ought to be) a crime.

You cannot lose the right to self-defense. It can be decided that you were not acting in self-defense. You were the aggressor. You actions included attack or a raise in the level of aggression. You could have defended yourself better by running away. You can also be judged to have hallucinated a threat. But none of these judgements take away from the fact that you have the right to defend yourself against physical attack.

Again, do you really think someone being raped does not have the right to physically hurt her attacker?

 

[Grantywanty]

*I am not saying you do not have a right to self defense. I am saying that it is not a fundamental right. It is a legal right and defense.

There is a difference.

But isn't the legal right based on our sense that it is a fundamental right. Isn't it so obvious and natural that it comes before all declarations of rights. It is presumed. It appears in every culture on earth, and of course each culture and country determines what is self-defense and what is really attack.
I find it odd, actually that people are concerned that it will be seen as fundamental.

This right cannot be taken away. I can be judged to have acted inappropriately, but these judgements are saying that 1) I attacked. I shot the guy who pushed me. I was not simply defending myself, I went beyond it. 2) I was not being attacked, so my act was not self defense but an attack.

 

[Learned Hand]

Here's a summary of the law:

The summary, in my opinion, is merely a restatement of common law. Florida courts may have played around with it long enough that the legislature down there saw fit to codify it. In other words, the judge made law could have become so entangled in when to flee vs. when force is necessary or reasonable that the legislature just wanted to clean it up. Alternatively, someone in the legislature had nothing better to do so he/she proposed a bill that simply restates what the common law already permits. Most likely though, it was for the purpose of clarification. Extending the castle doctrine to automobiles is definitely a new concept, and not necessarily unconstitutional (or as attorneys would say, unconstitutional per se.

Ah, but a fundamental right cannot have limitations set upon it. A criminal does not lose his or her fundamental rights if they are convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers. A fundamental right cannot be removed from any individual. That is what makes it fundamental.

You have a right to self defense. But that right is not fundamental. It is merely a right.

Fundamental rights can and do have limitations. In a society (other than a state of anarchy) fundamental rights are provided for by the constitution (as in the US) or other charter. They also have roots in common law in those countries that follow judge made precedent. If you're talking about philosophical rights beyond the governed society in which you live, then our definitions of fundamental must be defined.

As for limitations, our right to freedom of speech is limited. Our right to bear arms is limited. Our right of assembly is limited. Our freedom of religion is limited. Court's generally apply what is called a "strict scrutiny" analysis as to whether a law limiting these negative rights is constitutional. Stated differently, courts are allowed to narrowly tailor a law which touches upon a fundamental right such as free speech to reach the least restrictive means of a positive societal end.

 

[Learned Hand]

YES YOU CAN. You can deny someone of ANYTHING.

I don't know where you get this idea that rights don't exist if they can be taken away. It's absurd. Why do we have government? To secure our rights. They wouldn't need securing if they couldn't be taken away! AND IT IS FOR THAT VERY REASON THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE!!!!! Without that, you have no rights. That's why it's fundamental.

Madanthony's right on the money. A man waiting for execution for a crime upon which he was convicted through due process channels can be stripped of the fundamental rights secured by constitution or common law. He can't vote. He can't sue for wrongful death. If he escapes and clubs some guy in the jaw, he can't claim self-defense and be excused for it. In other words, society/government/law will no longer protect or enable such rights. Nevertheless, man will do what he can or wants to protect his life. Thus, humanistically, self-defense remains fundamental to the person; society, however, will disregard it as no longer fundamental.

 

[peta9]

Madanthony's right on the money. A man waiting for execution for a crime upon which he was convicted through due process channels can be stripped of the fundamental rights secured by constitution or common law. He can't vote. He can't sue for wrongful death. If he escapes and clubs some guy in the jaw, he can't claim self-defense and be excused for it. In other words, society/government/law will no longer protect or enable such rights. Nevertheless, man will do what he can or wants to protect his life. Thus, humanistically, self-defense remains fundamental to the person; society, however, will disregard it as no longer fundamental.

Realistically, self-defense is fundamental to ALL life. Human laws try to do it's best to mirror in our best interest but it ain't perfect just as humans are faulty, weak and need accountability to get along with others.