reply to post by mnemeth1
I will state this again.
The reason it is illogical is there is no absolute way for you (the one who makes the decision to use violence to defend yourself) to know if that
person is innocent.
The very concept of someone initiating violence is based up on past experiences which may, or may not apply to the new situation.
The only way you will know if he is truly initiating violence against you is to let the situation play out and look at it after the fact. If he
didn’t, then good. If he did, and you are dead, then you won’t be able to contemplate it in the first place.
The very concept of defending yourself to prevent a result is based upon the perception of the situation and it’s possible outcome if you do
nothing, based upon your previous experience. Not based upon the intent of the perpetrator, because you don’t know his intent, and his intent may be
irrelevant because he may not know that what he is doing will cause something.
If you apply strict logic to self defense, then you can’t defend yourself until you are killed by the other person because until you die, you
don’t know if he is going to kill you.
To initiate self defense before you are killed is basing your actions on previous experience, and determining that the person is trying to kill you
without any proof that your would have been dead if you had not acted. You won’t know until after the fact, when you take the clip from his gun, and
see if the gun actually had any bullets in it.
So, to say that we can only initiate violence against someone if we know that they are going to kill/steal/destroy is illogical, because we don’t
know until after the fact. If we prevent them from doing what they were going to do, then we may never know if they were innocent or not.
So, the natural result is, sometimes you may initiate a violent response to someone that did not intend to do violence to you. And it may be justified
because just because they did not intend to do violence didn’t mean that their actions would not have resulted in a violent result which was
justifiably defended against. And it may be justified because you did not know that the gun he had was not loaded, and that you wasn’t going to die
when he pulled the trigger.
To recognize the concept of self defense negates the concept of the initiation being the trigger for self defense, because to defend your self
prevents the initiation. That is because the initiation is the final event that results in the death. Or it’s every event that results in death. It
can’t be somewhere in between in squishy land.
edit on 22-2-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)