> And we don�t have to be too rigorous about this > "Court of Law" stuff; you agreed that in the example > of a man shooting other people from a building it > was reasonable to kill him - without a "Court of Law".
Again, self-defense is different from hunting and killing the accused-but-untried. > So, you have declared that there are two non-empty > sets of people, one of those that can be killed > without a court of law declaring that they are guilty, ...in an act of self defense! > and another that can only be killed after a court > of law declares that they are guilty. ...a set which includes everybody not actively firing a weapon or the equivalent at you. Marvin Long I don't like these splitting hair arguments, but there have been plenty of police who have legally killed individuals who were not firing weapons at the officers. The Learning Channel, or some show like it, showed police in LA killing the driver of a stolen army tank. The tank had killed no one, just caused massive destruction. The tank was stopped, it had driven onto a concrete wall and broken it's track. The police rushed the tank, popped the top, and told the guy to get out. When he didn't....bang. No tear gas, no wounding shot. Even in Alberto's example, what if a cop got to the same floor as a person shooting at people below him. Yes the cop(s) would be in danger if the guy whirls around and starts shooting, but they aren't in immediate self-defense danger. Should police sharp shooters never fire? Or be trained to shoot guns out of criminal's hands? I understand your point, that uncontrolled hunter killer teams shouldn't be tolerated but I cannot say never because there may be a time when such methods are necessary. Kevin
