The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Ana the Ist]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others​

2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent​

3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality​

​

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?

Do you think this is how it plays out when it happens?

People are trained, they react, and sometimes those reactions are imperfect.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about a park ranger, a patrol cop, or a soldier.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is that your suggestion? because it looks like chaos.

If you see a police officer today and you shoot him because you saw another police officer yesterday be violent "draw his weapon" - yesterday - then that is a crime punishable by jail or death.

If you see a police officer today who is the same police officer that drew his gun yesterday and you shoot him -- that is a crime punishable by jail or death.

If you view yourself at all-out-war against the police in general then you have declared your own "civil war" against the police - and in that case as in all civil war - it will be you and your army against the government and its army. (That's just "how civil war works" - in all of time)

Even if you see a police officer today who unjustly and wrongfully pulled is weapon on someone yesterday - you are supposed to report him -- not shoot him.

Actually I'd describe civil war as one group of people with political beliefs in conflict with another people with different beliefs.

Civil wars are drawn on political lines.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Was Penney's preemptive attack on Neeley morally justifiable? Or would Penny be better off if he followed Roger's Rule, "Know when to run"?

I don't see it as preemptive. I was under the impression that the man who died was threatening people with a knife. It's been awhile though, am I wrong?

 

[o_mlly]

Do you think this is how it plays out when it happens?

People are trained, they react, and sometimes those reactions are imperfect.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about a park ranger, a patrol cop, or a soldier.

Yes. Police may, depending upon the jurisdiction and the circumstances, draw their weapon and even put it to lethal use prior to the actual attack being threatened occurs.

My point is that all of us have the same moral right to a preemptive attack as justifiable self-defense.

I don't see it as preemptive. I was under the impression that the man who died was threatening people with a knife. It's been awhile though, am I wrong?

A preemptive attack is the actual attack that occurs first. In just war theory, the unjust aggressor is the one who attacks first.

At the time this thread began in July 2021, several mid-eastern countries including Hamas in Gaza were aggressively threatening Israel's very existence ... well before the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. I argued that Israel would be within its moral rights to preemptively attack and render the threat eliminated.

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?

 

[o_mlly]

I don't see it as preemptive. I was under the impression that the man who died was threatening people with a knife. It's been awhile though, am I wrong?

Because Neeley was threatening but had not yet actually attacked, Penny's act would be considered preemptive. As I understand the case, Neeley did not display a weapon.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't see it as preemptive. I was under the impression that the man who died was threatening people with a knife. It's been awhile though, am I wrong?

You appear to be wrong on that point. No knife was involved. However, I also don't think Penny's action was "pre-emptive homicide," as the chokehold is not made with an intent to kill, nor is it even alleged that Penny had an intent to kill. Legally (at least by Texas law), Penny used "force," not "deadly force."

 

[Ana the Ist]

You appear to be wrong on that point. No knife was involved. However, I also don't think Penny's action was "pre-emptive homicide," as the chokehold is not made with an intent to kill, nor is it even alleged that Penny had an intent to kill. Legally (at least by Texas law), Penny used "force," not "deadly force."

Well...it killed him. Whether he intended to or not does matter....but it won't change the fact that he used deadly force. Think of the Floyd case.

And after reading 5 articles on the case....wow. It's unbelievably difficult to find any clear description of the behavior of the deceased prior to the defendants putting him into a chokehold. Some recall him threatening to kill and claim fear for their lives. Others....just recall him belligerent and generally threatening.

I think most would agree that a different outcome where the deceased got mental health treatment would be better. The problem here is that without a weapon and direct threat to kill or harm (despite a generalized one) the result of manslaughter or negligent homicide is appropriate even if the defendant was trying to help and not kill the man. 6 minutes in a chokehold is long but it can feel short with adrenaline and stress.

 

[RDKirk]

And after reading 5 articles on the case....wow. It's unbelievably difficult to find any clear description of the behavior of the deceased prior to the defendants putting him into a chokehold. Some recall him threatening to kill and claim fear for their lives. Others....just recall him belligerent and generally threatening.

Most of the people were trying to ignore the guy…they’re not going to make the best of witnesses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. Police may, depending upon the jurisdiction and the circumstances, draw their weapon and even put it to lethal use prior to the actual attack being threatened occurs.

The basis for this...or legal reasoning anyway....is the police officer is both carrying out a duty to the people (and risking his life in the process) and he's been trained to look for indicators of an imminent threat. Those are real things. I don't see why you wouldn't be afforded the same consideration though, if you were sufficiently trained in a similar manner.

My point is that all of us have the same moral right to a preemptive attack as justifiable self-defense.

Despite calls for standards to be raised for cops in deadly force incidents....the standard for which a civilian can claim self defense is actually lower.

1. The threat of bodily harm is reasonable to the average person (aka most would agree that it's likely that you were about to be harmed severely).

2. The attacker displayed intent.

3. The attacker displayed means.

So consider someone 100 yards away threatening to kill you by throwing a rock....unless he's already winging deadly stones at your head at high speed....#3 is missing....and you really shouldn't shoot him.

The same guy holding a firearm? You're good to defend yourself. Laws change state to state but with those elements present you should be fine.

Unless you're secretly Kyle Rittenhouse of course lol.

A preemptive attack is the actual attack that occurs first. In just war theory, the unjust aggressor is the one who attacks first.

I thought this was about self defense lol.

I reject just war theory and am a total war theorist.

At the time this thread began in July 2021, several mid-eastern countries including Hamas in Gaza were aggressively threatening Israel's very existence ... well before the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. I argued that Israel would be within its moral rights to preemptively attack and render the threat eliminated.

People want to argue differently depending upon where their morals lie.

I fully believe that the people of Gaza, not simply Hamas, are entitled to kill and die for the land they believe should be theirs. I think the choice of defiance or obedience are natural rights which cannot be removed ever nor require the justification of anyone else.

To that point, the Israelis have the same right.

 

[o_mlly]

The basis for this...or legal reasoning anyway....is the police officer is both carrying out a duty to the people (and risking his life in the process) and he's been trained to look for indicators of an imminent threat. Those are real things. I don't see why you wouldn't be afforded the same consideration though, if you were sufficiently trained in a similar manner.

All citizens have a moral but not a legal duty to protect the community.

The training to interpret the subtle observations that portend imminent danger seems an important aspect in preparing law enforcement persons. However, in interpreting obvious threats, no such training is required for a normal human. The caveman did not need special training in order to know that climbing a tree is a good idea when being chased by a Sabercat.

In Penny's case, I think his act was heroic. Since heroic acts are far too difficult and for most people almost impossible, any law which ordinarily ordains excessively difficult or even impossible acts is no longer a useful law and thus ceases to be a law. Nevertheless, there is an occasion when heroic acts may be commanded: if the common good requires such acts, eg., fighting for one’s country. Penny was not obligated to fight for his "community" of subway riders, but he did so thinking not to kill, but to protect.

I thought this was about self defense lol.

The non-aggressor country is acting justly in its own self-defense.

I fully believe that the people of Gaza, not simply Hamas, are entitled to kill and die for the land they believe should be theirs. I think the choice of defiance or obedience are natural rights which cannot be removed ever nor require the justification of anyone else.

Would not such a prescription bring the world into a constant state of chaos? Kinda like my kids arguing, "Hey, I was here first!" Or news flash: "Irish Celts invade central Europe ... claiming the Celts were there first!"

Natural rights emanate from natural needs. Do the Gazans felt need to own what is effectively already theirs justify the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre? I think not.

 

[RDKirk]

Well...it killed him. Whether he intended to or not does matter....but it won't change the fact that he used deadly force. Think of the Floyd case.

I think in the Floyd case it was more possible to determine that Floyd had been subdued a significant amount of time before he died.

 

[Stephen3141]

Whether the moral actor is the policeman or the state, what circumstances justify using lethal force as an act of self-defense?

The justification for the policeman's use of lethal force can be conservatively summarized as:

1) The potentially unjust aggressor's manifest intent to mortally injure others​

2) The potentially aggressor's objective acts that enable effecting their malevolent intent​

3) The potential target's lack of action greatly magnifies the risk of their mortality​

​

Do the same criteria enable a state to preemptively attack another state? If not, why not?

By the way, this topic should include the actions of God to protect
his People from violent or immoral people groups, in the past.

Psalm 136, has some examples of this.

And, there are a lot of people who argue that God, acting preemtively to
protect his People, is acting immorally.

 

[o_mlly]

By the way, this topic should include the actions of God to protect
his People from violent or immoral people groups, in the past.

Of course it includes Him. And we, those who do His will, are His instruments.

And there are a lot of people who argue that God, acting preemtively to
protect his People, is acting immorally.

Who are those people? As He is the author of morality, God's will cannot be immoral.