Unrecognized Legal Precedent 08 25 2020
Let's say a woman is attacked.
Perhaps the question should arise, at any point during that attack if she had used deadly force in her defense would she be innocent of killing the attacker? At any point.
But lets say that she didn't have a gun.
Okay it gets to the court system. And the man is found guilty of the attack.
How come the legal system doesn't ask that question with regard to the death penalty? "At any point during that attack had that person successfully used deadly force would they be legally innocent?"
Now lets say that the court system takes up that question. And in this particular hypothetical they say, "Yes she could have used deadly force and would have been innocent."
Should the sentence of the death penalty by the court system then be appropriate?
Now lets say that she could have used deadly force but she did not at that time, because she didn't have a gun. She goes and gets a gun, at a later point in time and...
What I am getting at is that it already reached the point where she could have been found innocent in the use of that deadly force.
It is kind of the don't tread on us principle? May be hard for some people to understand concepts like this. To live in freedom means to live with a sense perpetuity of peace?
Or perhaps freedom really isn't free; it takes strong minds to maintain freedom?
© 2020 Thomas Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment