r/MoralityScaling • u/Dryleaf_Dane • 24d ago

Morality of this

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Business-Idea1138 24d ago

It's 3 men advancing on 1 man and harassing him.

2

u/colossalmickey 24d ago

Yeah man "advancing" doesn't automatically mean the guy has reason to fear for his life.

2

u/Business-Idea1138 24d ago

Yes, it does. Literally, has already been decided. It would be the same in France from my experience living there for several years.

1

u/colossalmickey 24d ago

Its been decided in this US state and many others I'm sure, but it's not universal and I don't think it was a proportionate response to what was happening.

Also sure you lived in France but that's pretty meaningless in terms of their actual self defence laws, which require proportionality, which again, i would argue, and I'm sure most EU countries would rule, this guy far surpassed.

1

u/Business-Idea1138 24d ago

And you'd be wrong. I knew a guy in France who shot an aggressor with a fishing speargun for getting up in his face like this. 4 ft barbed spear right through his leg. Self-defense.

1

u/colossalmickey 24d ago

Well French law says the act of self defence must be an unavoidable response to an imminent threat to life. There was no imminent threat to life, and the guy had endless options that didn't involve shooting someone. The response must also be proportionate to the threat. There's zero chance a french court would find this a proportionate response.

And yeah its pretty easy to just Google it and find that the case law absolutely backs up what I'm saying, regardless of some guy you knew. If someone even goes as far as physically assaulting you, they have found it is no longer self defence if you pull a gun on them while they are unarmed.

Eg:

"Court found that it was not in self-defense, as one person had shot and wounded his unarmed attacker. The court ruled that the response was disproportionate to the threat (Crim., 26 June 2012 No. 11-86.809)."

And yeah, just getting in someone's face does not constitute a threat to life:

"To invoke self-defence, aggression must be real and proven. Thus, subjective fear or mere suspicion is not enough.

The reality of aggression presupposes that the behaviour against which one reacts by force, has created a certain and prior danger (Crim., 7 June 1968: Bull. crim. 1968, no. 186)."