"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> And this is what I tried to debunk with my revised example.
> If the SWAT Team Officer and the terrorist meet face to face
> in a dark alley, and faced with imminent death, seek to kill
> the other - then the SWAT team is justified in making the
> kill, while the terrorist is not.
why? what information that is contained in your revised example
makes this so? if that information is not in the example - what is
it? if the actions are equivalent then the justification, or lack of
it, is the same. but if the two actions are not equivalent then the
justifications might be different.
anytime in your examples that you present the actions of the SWAT
Team Officer and the Terrorist as equivalent you are providing them
with the same 'justification'. i do not want terrorists around, and
if SWAT Team Officers can do the same actions as a Terrorist but be
seen as 'justified' i don't want them around either.
(a SWAT Team Officer that has authorization to kill someone simply
because they are labelled 'Terrorist' is someone who is in danger of
killing someone who is not presenting a danger to others. that
Officer is also going to be a primary target for any actual
'Terrorist' and may become a target for someone who has been labelled
'Terrorist'. approving identical actions by an Officer doesn't help
them against 'Terrorists'.)
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
