Dormin111 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 The scenario: Jones approaches Smith's house shooting a gun with the intent to murder Smith. Smith responds by returning fire with his own gun in a clear act of self-defense. Jones is frightened and flees. Smith is succesful in his self-defense, but afterwards notices that some of his shots hit his neighbor's house. The neighbor is unharmed but requires money to repair the damage. Who, if anyone should be legally required to reimburse the neighbor? Possible Choices: - Jones: fired the gun which caused the damage, willingly took the risk of causing collateral damage - Smith: provoked the incident which led to the collateral damage, was the aggressor - Neighbor: collateral damage is an expected component of self-defense and he got unlucky - The state: no individual is objectively at fault but reimbursement of collateral damage falls under law enforcement duties Furthermore, can this same dynamic apply to war vis a vis moral defender countires, moral aggressor countries, civilian collateral damage, and total warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 The scenario: Jones approaches Smith's house shooting a gun with the intent to murder Smith. Smith responds by returning fire with his own gun in a clear act of self-defense. Jones is frightened and flees. Smith is succesful in his self-defense, but afterwards notices that some of his shots hit his neighbor's house. The neighbor is unharmed but requires money to repair the damage. Who, if anyone should be legally required to reimburse the neighbor? Possible Choices: - Jones: fired the gun which caused the damage, willingly took the risk of causing collateral damage - Smith: provoked the incident which led to the collateral damage, was the aggressor - Neighbor: collateral damage is an expected component of self-defense and he got unlucky - The state: no individual is objectively at fault but reimbursement of collateral damage falls under law enforcement duties Furthermore, can this same dynamic apply to war vis a vis moral defender countires, moral aggressor countries, civilian collateral damage, and total warfare. Jones because he was the aggressor. What happens in response to his aggression is his fault. This can apply to war but only when the threat is imminent like in the example given. Just because someone violates your rights, doesn't give you carte blanche to any response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Jones because he was the aggressor. What happens in response to his aggression is his fault. I don't think this is such a hard and fast distinction. Really, everything that happens in response is his fault? Anything that happens? What about collateral damage that could have otherwise been avoided by the victim, but happened due to the victim's carelessness or neglegence? Surely there can be such instances. Or what about when the victim has a clear alternative, but chooses to inflict collateral damage anyway? What if the victim isn't such a clear victim, but is actually provoking aggression or committing his own aggression in many cases as well? In the real world, many instances are like this, and it seems to me that the justification of collateral damage starts to weaken as many of these criteria strengthen along the continuum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Legal reimbursement would be provided by the neighbors insurance company. Civil courts would then be utitlised by the insurance company to gain a judgement against the party the court finds to be responsible, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 30, 2013 Report Share Posted March 30, 2013 Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) I don't think this is such a hard and fast distinction. Really, everything that happens in response is his fault? Anything that happens? No. I was responding to the specific example and the specific facts given. What about collateral damage that could have otherwise been avoided by the victim, but happened due to the victim's carelessness or neglegence? Surely there can be such instances. Give an example. What if the victim isn't such a clear victim, but is actually provoking aggression or committing his own aggression in many cases as well? In the real world, many instances are like this, and it seems to me that the justification of collateral damage starts to weaken as many of these criteria strengthen along the continuum. I wasn't attempting to give a justification of collateral damage for all examples, I was responding to the specific example given. Edited April 2, 2013 by thenelli01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 No. I was responding to the specific example and the specific facts given. Give an example. I wasn't attempting to give a justification of collateral damage for all examples, I was responding to the specific example given. Right,sorry I don't mean to imply you thought that, I meant to be posing a question and responding to them only generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Right,sorry I don't mean to imply you thought that, I meant to be posing a question and responding to them only generally.I see, I reread and I take your point. My answer wasn't great or well written. The response needs to be a reasonable, defensive response to an imminent attack. Just because someone violates your rights, doesn't give you carte blanche to any response. However, it also needs to be considered that pressure situations can create inaccuracy. So although Smith wasn't so accurate by hitting the neighbors' property, it was still an appropriate, defensive response to Jones' threatening action and therefore it is Jones' fault. Edited April 4, 2013 by thenelli01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.