Non-lethal force? Have star trek's stun guns been developed? Oh, pepper spray? "As of 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union documented 26 individuals subject to police action who died following exposure to pepper spray. In none of these cases was pepper spray listed as the cause of death, but it is unclear whether it may have been a contributing factor in some cases." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray)
I suspect you can find cases of death from use of any type of force, no matter how non-lethal it was intended. So, to allow any force in opposing crime, non-lethal force would have to be defined in legislation, unless we are discussing an academic exercise (actually, I suspect there would have to be a definition of "approved force" for self-defense which excluded use of firearms -- good luck with that). In any case, there is always the militia reason for defense of the state, unless America intends to become a nation of pacifists. And hunting, unless that to is banned, and target shooting, ... , and any other lawful activity (of which the most common have been named not to exclude the others). Phil > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against > Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a > Crime? > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 13:32:18 -0400 > From: not...@powerblogs.com > To: vol...@lists.powerblogs.com > > > > Posted by Eugene Volokh: > Can Lethal Self-Defense, Even Against Threats of Death, Serious Bodily Injury, Rape, and Kidnapping, Be Made a Crime? > http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_31-2009_06_06.shtml#1243963935 > > > The [1]Seventh Circuit's Second Amendment non-incorporation decision > so suggests: > > Suppose a state were to decide that people cornered in their homes > must surrender rather than fight back -- in other words, that > burglars should be deterred by the criminal law rather than self > help. That decision would imply that no one is entitled to keep a > handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would itself > be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment protects > only the interests of law-abiding citizens. See United States v. > Jackson, 555 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2009) (no constitutional right to > have guns ready to hand when distributing illegal drugs). > > Our hypothetical is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Self-defense > is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many > states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, > and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible. An > obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an > obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns. A modification > of the self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest > of public safety -- whether guns deter or facilitate crime is an > empirical question -- but it is difficult to argue that legislative > evaluation of which weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense > has been out of the people's hands since 1868. > > Note that the court's argument isn't simply that lethal self-defense > could be constitutionally limited to situations where it's genuinely > necessary to protect against (say) death, serious injury, rape, or > kidnapping. Rather, the argument must be that lethal self-defense > could be constitutionally barred altogether. Otherwise the court's > argument that "That decision would imply that no one is entitled to > keep a handgun at home for self-defense, because self-defense would > itself be a crime, and Heller concluded that the second amendment > protects only the interests of law-abiding citizens" wouldn't work: > The argument rests on the assumption that guns would be unusable to > "law-abiding citizens" because "[lethal] self-defense would itself be > a crime." > > Likewise, the argument is not only that certain tools for lethal > self-defense could be barred. That's the conclusion that the panel is > trying to reach by arguing (I repeat) that lethal self-defense could > itself be made a crime. (I read "self-defense" as meaning "lethal > self-defense" in context.) > > Now not all bad laws, even evil laws, are unconstitutional laws. And > the lower court cases (all of them pre-Heller, except Brett, N. v. > Community Unit School Dist No. 303, 2009 WL 424546 (N.D. Ill. 2009)) > are indeed split on whether there is a constitutional right to > self-defense. But it seems to me that the case for such a right -- > including a right of lethal self-defense when necessary to prevent > death, serious bodily injury, rape, and kidnapping -- is very strong, > even under the narrowest accepted test for recognizing constitutional > rights (the Glucksberg test, from the decision that rejected a claimed > right to assisted suicide). For a past on-blog debate on the subject, > see [2]this post chain. > > References > > 1. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_002.pdf > 2. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1216147576.shtml > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org jon.rol...@constitution.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
