I will come back and closely read your article later but here are my immediate thoughts on "our right to retaliate to violence."
I reject both the idea that self-defence must be tempered in any way, and also the figment that we have an obligation to stand back and wait for the proper gun-toting government-licensed police force to provide our protection from harm.
Firstly the second part, that we wait for legal help when under assault, is easy to refute logically. It is impossible to have a police officer walking beside everyone , at instant beck and call. And further more, the legal system is only capable of arrest, prosecute, and penalize after the fact. To even consider the creation of a legal system that prosecuted for suspicion violate any and all legitimacy for law.
but point number one, our right to retaliate best approached from a pre-government viewpoint. In nature, all creatures do all they can to preserve their own lives, there being no world organized defence structure. Darwin rules apply; survival of the fittest. Humanity was no exception until the formation of social order changed things and it is the promise to curtail our ability to initiate force that underpins all social order.
Our brightest ancestors finally figured out that the proper role of government is to restrain those persons that cannot or will not live peacefully with their fellow human beings. Those who fully respect reciprocal rights in their fellow citizens need no restrictions on the actions-- those who do not,, deserve no freedom.
Finally, the recognition that each of us is a sovereign moral entity, that we live by our own moral standard, that what we do to others gives them the right to retaliate, is the basis upon which all human interaction hangs. Following that line of reasoning clearly sorts out the mess we live with today.
You can find a summary of the Canadian law of self defence here. The key word is reasonable. There is an interesting list of factors explaining what reasonable means, including whether there were other means available to deter the attack, but ultimately the question is whether your response was reasonable.
I wouldn’t think that a fist fight between neighbours or a drunk being annoying or aggressive to a large, trained professional would pass that test in Canada. The law even looks at the relevant size of the individuals involved.
I prefer this approach of looking at the overall situation to imposing a duty to retreat or stand your ground. That just confuses things and creates weird results sometimes.
In practice it seems the Canadian authorities recognize self defence very reluctantly and want to impose a pound of flesh on the person who protects himself, especially when someone dies.
So the reality is that, in all but the clearest cases, they will arrest the person and let the courts sort it out. That may lead to charges being dropped a few months later, but of course that is damaging and stressful in itself.
Without disclosing too much, our family had a case where an angry homeowner chased a teen who broke into his home under construction onto our property. One of the cops wanted to believe that the chasee was an innocent bystander, although eventually the cops reluctantly arrested him. (He was a fairly good looking white teen and it was a lady cop, FWIW.)
So the moral of the story is that the cops don’t like people chasing criminals, even if the cops have nothing to offer, and you have to be wary that the cops or prosecutor will believe the other side’s bullshit story even if you are in fact justified.
I agree that imposing a duty to retreat or allowing citizens to stand their ground actually makes things quite confusing. That said, every situation is unique, so it's impossible to be too specific, either. The law is broad by necessity, but then you have activist, political judges and prosecutors who narrow these laws and force citizens to meet impossible standards for the use of violence.
This is where morality matters. The law really isn't much of a substitute for a strong set of values and laws rooted in something other than morality becomes a tyranny. In many countries, killing someone who attacks you may not necessarily be sanctioned by law, but the collective morality recognizes that attacking someone in the first place was the greater wrong. If someone is harassing you, punching them might not necessarily be legally permissible, but as a culture, we accept it as a practice, and the legal system doesn't supersede that norm.
Americans, typically liberals, pride themselves on the "rules-based order," both here and abroad. But the rules need to serve an ultimate goal, not as an end to themselves. The goal behind following the rules appears to be to not be the one who ends up going to jail, even if you end up dead in the process. This is a contradiction we as a society need to ultimately confront, but I don't know how we even start.
As Max has said here before, you kill someone, expect to be arrested. You may not be charged. A court may find it justifiable. But you're going to spend at least a night in jail. I'm not sure this is right (does a law-abiding homeowner really represent a flight risk) but it is SOP for cops.
Note, these days whether you are charged or convicted will depend significantly on your skin color, your victim's skin color, and your political views as determined by social media postings.
It would be nice if all the people in authority over us would agree to abide by rights enshrined in the constitution. But alas, we are a country, not of laws, but of men…
I will come back and closely read your article later but here are my immediate thoughts on "our right to retaliate to violence."
I reject both the idea that self-defence must be tempered in any way, and also the figment that we have an obligation to stand back and wait for the proper gun-toting government-licensed police force to provide our protection from harm.
Firstly the second part, that we wait for legal help when under assault, is easy to refute logically. It is impossible to have a police officer walking beside everyone , at instant beck and call. And further more, the legal system is only capable of arrest, prosecute, and penalize after the fact. To even consider the creation of a legal system that prosecuted for suspicion violate any and all legitimacy for law.
but point number one, our right to retaliate best approached from a pre-government viewpoint. In nature, all creatures do all they can to preserve their own lives, there being no world organized defence structure. Darwin rules apply; survival of the fittest. Humanity was no exception until the formation of social order changed things and it is the promise to curtail our ability to initiate force that underpins all social order.
Our brightest ancestors finally figured out that the proper role of government is to restrain those persons that cannot or will not live peacefully with their fellow human beings. Those who fully respect reciprocal rights in their fellow citizens need no restrictions on the actions-- those who do not,, deserve no freedom.
Finally, the recognition that each of us is a sovereign moral entity, that we live by our own moral standard, that what we do to others gives them the right to retaliate, is the basis upon which all human interaction hangs. Following that line of reasoning clearly sorts out the mess we live with today.
You can find a summary of the Canadian law of self defence here. The key word is reasonable. There is an interesting list of factors explaining what reasonable means, including whether there were other means available to deter the attack, but ultimately the question is whether your response was reasonable.
https://www.strategiccriminaldefence.com/faq/self-defence-laws-canada/
I wouldn’t think that a fist fight between neighbours or a drunk being annoying or aggressive to a large, trained professional would pass that test in Canada. The law even looks at the relevant size of the individuals involved.
I prefer this approach of looking at the overall situation to imposing a duty to retreat or stand your ground. That just confuses things and creates weird results sometimes.
In practice it seems the Canadian authorities recognize self defence very reluctantly and want to impose a pound of flesh on the person who protects himself, especially when someone dies.
So the reality is that, in all but the clearest cases, they will arrest the person and let the courts sort it out. That may lead to charges being dropped a few months later, but of course that is damaging and stressful in itself.
Without disclosing too much, our family had a case where an angry homeowner chased a teen who broke into his home under construction onto our property. One of the cops wanted to believe that the chasee was an innocent bystander, although eventually the cops reluctantly arrested him. (He was a fairly good looking white teen and it was a lady cop, FWIW.)
So the moral of the story is that the cops don’t like people chasing criminals, even if the cops have nothing to offer, and you have to be wary that the cops or prosecutor will believe the other side’s bullshit story even if you are in fact justified.
I agree that imposing a duty to retreat or allowing citizens to stand their ground actually makes things quite confusing. That said, every situation is unique, so it's impossible to be too specific, either. The law is broad by necessity, but then you have activist, political judges and prosecutors who narrow these laws and force citizens to meet impossible standards for the use of violence.
This is where morality matters. The law really isn't much of a substitute for a strong set of values and laws rooted in something other than morality becomes a tyranny. In many countries, killing someone who attacks you may not necessarily be sanctioned by law, but the collective morality recognizes that attacking someone in the first place was the greater wrong. If someone is harassing you, punching them might not necessarily be legally permissible, but as a culture, we accept it as a practice, and the legal system doesn't supersede that norm.
Americans, typically liberals, pride themselves on the "rules-based order," both here and abroad. But the rules need to serve an ultimate goal, not as an end to themselves. The goal behind following the rules appears to be to not be the one who ends up going to jail, even if you end up dead in the process. This is a contradiction we as a society need to ultimately confront, but I don't know how we even start.
A timely question: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/elderly-california-homeowner-guns-down-robber-trying-break/
As Max has said here before, you kill someone, expect to be arrested. You may not be charged. A court may find it justifiable. But you're going to spend at least a night in jail. I'm not sure this is right (does a law-abiding homeowner really represent a flight risk) but it is SOP for cops.
Note, these days whether you are charged or convicted will depend significantly on your skin color, your victim's skin color, and your political views as determined by social media postings.
It would be nice if all the people in authority over us would agree to abide by rights enshrined in the constitution. But alas, we are a country, not of laws, but of men…