From: Artillo5@cs.com
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 11:12:15 MDT
OK, seems to me this whole thing comes down to definition of terms (aka
"lawyer's sleight of hand"). My opinions are as follows: I don't consider a
"actual threat" as the same thing as a "potential threat". The analogy about
the guy pulling a gun on you can be further dissected like this:
1. "Potential threat" is that there's some mean-looking guy walking in your
direction, who may or may not have a weapon (no direct evidence). This may be
a reson for concern, but I'm certainly not going to blow the guy's head off
just for looking suspicious. So it comes down to this for defense: 1a.) Use
an unjustified "pre-emptive strike" to take the guy out before he becomes an
"actual threat", even if there's no evidence to show he could become one, or
1b) Treat him with suspicion and either get away from him or report him to
the authorities (Yes I know, this opens up the arguement as to who is the
"authority" in this case, but just trying to focus on one issue at a time).
2. "Clear and present danger" or "actual threat" is when that guy shows you
that he's armed (means) AND reaches for his gun (intent). Both of these
criteria must be met in order for a defense to this "actual threat" to be
justified. So if you see a police officer with his sidearm in plain view, he
obviously has the means to impose an "actual threat", but not the intent.
My 2 cents,
Arti
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 11:20:16 MDT