Perception vs Reality (The Ethics of)

[Lord MJ]

I've been thinking about this.

Currently from what I understand about the law (admittedly a lot of it comes from courtroom dramas) the justification defense for murder is valid if the assailant reasonably believed he was in imminent danger from the "victim." It doesn't require that he actually be in imminent danger. So if in reality the "victim" was completely harmless but the assailant "reasonably" perceived imminent harm, he gets a walk.

I really want to get some opinions on the ethics of this. On one hand you have the argument that "reality is only what a person perceives it to be" and if in that reality he was in imminent danger he should be able to act accordingly.

On the flip side, someone's dead because of someone else's poor judgment.

Now assuming the "victim" didn't do anything Darwin Awardish, should someone get a walk because they perceived imminent danger?

And what about lesser offenses for lesser perceived threats. For example, taking something from my own experience, two partners are in a business. An emergency erupts and Partner A is trying to get in touch with Partner B, Partner B keeps texting back that "He'll get back to him," but Partner A needs to have a conversation immediately. They go back and forth for days via text message, Partner A is going apeshit by that point. Partner B concludes that Partner A is a crazy nutjob and thus has cause to fear for his safety, and immediately cuts off all communication with Partner A. Would he be justified in this because he perceived that he was in danger from a crazy person even though reality is completely different.

I would argue, and I can bet some on this board will disagree, that despite the fact that killing someone is much much more harmful than taking off on a business partner. The killing is more justified because in this case the assailant doesn't have time to effectively analyze the situation, he/she could have mere seconds, and killing may be excused due to that short time frame of analysis.

In the other case, there is clearly much more time to analyze, and ways to prevent a controversy or to cool things down, so there is less justification even though the harm done is less.

[Timotheus]

I guess this would really be a case by case situation. Two extremes


1. Guy steps out holding one of those lighters that looks like a gun and walking right at a scared shitless person. Guy lifts gun/lighter to light a smoke and instead gets smoked himself.

2. Woman blows away a 6'4 black man because he turns down the same street as her in NYC and he "looks scary like he could kill me".

Case number one obviously is ok. This guy was an idiot and no one would say you did anything wrong shooting that guy. Case number two though is a blatant example of reckless homicide and she should spend several years in jail.

Yes case number one is almost a darwin award, but case number two is not all that unlikely to happen.

[Dahak]

I don't know about your laws, but here self-defense is not so clear-cut as above, and it depends on the situation and circumstance of the case if it is in self-defense or not.
Big here is proportionality. If someone attacks you with a knife, and you shoot him dead, this could lead to this person losing the ability to claim self-defense.
Your lighter example could possible be covered under "Putativnotwehr" (putative/imaginary self defense) and can claim self-defense. But again, it requires detailed look at the circumstances and details...

[Broomstick]

I think you have to look at the facts of each case.

For example, I believe I fought off an attempted rapist. I concluded he was trying to rape me as he grabbed me around the neck, pulled me into some bushes, and was attempting to remove my shirt when I started to fight back. As it turned out, I injured him more severely than he did me. I suppose it is possible he did not intend rape, he did not in fact get anywhere near my crotch, maybe he just wanted to fondle my tits, but the circumstances would lead most reasonable people to conclude that that was what he he on his mind. Or at least some form of mayhem. In that case, I think my causing him bodily harm was justified self-defense.

There are cases where, given what the presumptive self-defense claimant had to work with, a reasonable person could be expected to come to the same conclusions. There have been several instances in the US of toy guns that look quite authentic leading to the holder being shot - well, yes, someone holds what looks like a real gun on you, you may not have time to do an exhaustive analysis on whether it's an authentic weapon or not, particularly in low light conditions. This is why some folks want to take these toys off the market, because kids holding them have occasionally been shot by police or others who think a 12 year old is about to fire on them. The police in that instance weren't in any danger from a toy gun, but there was no way for them to know is wasn't a real weapon. If you were in the shooter's shoes you wouldn't be able to tell it was a fake, either. Now, in some places police would hesitate just because it's a child holding the weapon, but sad to say there are places in the US where some of the 12 years pack real weapons. It wouldn't surprise me if some adults have used such toys to rob banks or people, but again, the victim has no quick or easy way to determine these aren't real weapons thus I can't condemn someone who has reason to believe they're about to be shot using lethal force.

There is also a matter of disparity between attacker and victim. As an example, a petite, wheel-chair using grandma can not be expected to hold off a young, male, tall, muscular, knife-wielding attacker. In that case, a gun is arguably equalizing the odds. On the other hand, a 6 foot martial arts trained weight lifter shooting a 12 year old flashing a pocket knife is arguably excessive force.

There are other factors, too - shooting someone in the front of the body is one thing. However, shooting them in the back is NOT considered self-defense. Shooting some bad guy who is attempting to flee in the face of your awesome self defense capability is considered murder because they are no longer threatening you, they are attempting to leave the scene. If they're attempting to run backward the same thing applies - the threat is over, they're leaving, shooting them at that point is murder, not self-defense.

So I would say there is an ethical justification in some cases but it's not an area where you can make a blanket statement. That's probably why if you hurt or kill someone in self-defense there is a police investigation of some sort (even if only to say "yeah, we looked at it, it's pretty obviously self-defense). That doesn't mean there's a formal trial in all cases, but if it looks dicey then it is entirely possible for it to wind up in the court system before a judge and jury.

[Darth Wong]

I thought this "perceived imminent threat" criterion was based on what a "reasonable person" would perceive, which is why a racist can't gun down a black guy for looking at him funny and then say he feared for his life because he has a phobia of black people.

[Broomstick]

You are correct, Mike. Unfortunately, early in US history the scenario you describe probably did happen, but despite bitching about US society, most reasonable people would find "he looked at me funny, and I have a phobia of black people" is not an acceptable defense.

[BountyHunterSAx]

I'm curious, how do we (in the US) determine what the actions of a reasonable person are? My first instinct is to guess "what the average person" would do, but there are two issues I have with that.

1.) How on earth do we determine that directly?
2.) If we view representatives as speaking for those they represent, then the 'average' person would pass Roe vs. Wade, The Patriot Act, The Alien and Sedition Acts, Jim Crow Laws, and more.


Legally what qualifies as "what a reasonable person would do?"

-AHMAD