Yes, I was simplifying, but I don't think overly so. I thought the question was what special legal obligation existed, for an armed individual by reason that he is armed under a [legal] "duty to rescue".
Yes, I did know that the potential for grave bodily harm, kidnapping, etc. justified the use of deadly force -- it is a question that has much perplexed me how to distinguish that potential for grave bodily harm from a genuine threat to life -- especially in the circumstances where rapid decisions are needed with incomplete information. I would be doubly perplexed if I knew a violent act was being committed and had certainty that there was no risk of death (how I would know that is a mystery) and my only possible response would be to offer deadly force that could lead to death. That might be legal, but wouldn't be moral. Yes, I can imagine that a 6' 4" man beating a 5' 5" man (or woman) with his fists without really intending to kill, but personal weapons (fists, feet, . . .) are used in more murders each year than so-called assault weapons. So, if I were to observe such a beating, I don't think I could conclude there was a threat of grave bodily harm and not threat to life. Even rape presents the risk of death from AIDS, not to mention the possibility of death from the force used. And, if I were to observe a kidnapping, please tell me how I might reasonably conclude that murder would not be the end result? (Yes, I might know murder wouldn't be the end result if I knew the parent was the kidnapper, but what would be the sense of offering deadly force against a parential kidnapper and what would be the legal "duty to rescue" in such a case). It is possible that unwise statements by people to police after they used deadly force against a violent criminal might require the benefit of the other provisions of the law that I find hard to imagine. Still, in all such cases, I suspect that an armed person could be in legal trouble for intervening in what appears to be a violent attack if they didn't issue a warning to stop the attack before actually shooting an attacker (certainly for liability reasons if no other). The moment a warning is issued, the person has alerted a violent actor. At that moment a risk is created to the person issuing the warning. So, an armed person has the "risky" escape clause. Sadly, we've seen that even police officers have no legal "duty to rescue" (Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department) and some states have precluded lawsuits for police failure to prevent crimes. How can a physical confrontation be required by a "duty to rescue" law that has the "risky" escape clause? If there was a "duty to rescue" law without that clause one would expect a successful lawsuit against a negligent police department. Has there been? I thought the question was what special legal obligation existed, for an armed individual by reason that he is armed, under the [legal] "duty to rescue". If there exists a legal obligation, I can't think of it. I can think of many non-legal obligations, however. That is how it should be. Phil Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Folks: The purpose of this list is to provide helpful > information to list members for the purposes of their academic work. > It's thus especially helpful if people's comments focus on subjects on > which they have expertise. At least, if people want to express > tentative opinions on subjects on which they don't have expertise, they > ought to flag their opinions as tentative opinions, rather than just > making flat assertions that others on the list might erroneously think > are indeed accurate. > > Consider, for instance, the item below. To begin with, use of > deadly force is not always illegal unless someone's life is in danger. > In most states, it's permissible to use deadly force to prevent not just > death but rape, kidnapping, or serious bodily injury. In many states, > it's permissible to use deadly force to stop robbery; in some, to stop > residential burglary; in at least one, to stop theft. Nor do those > states simply presume that people who are being raped, robbed, or > burglarized are also feeling a threat to their lives -- while this might > be one of the reasons why the law allows deadly force in such > situations, the laws apply even when the defendant candidly admits that > he felt no threat to his life, but was only reacting to some other > crime. > > Second, it is just not the case that "legal 'duty to rescue' is > limited to cases where you are somehow responsible for the conditions > that placed the life in peril." Generally speaking, the duty also > applies when you have a special relationship (e.g., parent-child or > spouse-spouse) with the victim, plus a few other situations. And, most > relevant for our discussion -- it's the item that prompted the article > that started the discussion -- several states do impose a broader duty > to rescue on everyone (subject to various constraints, such as the > duty's not applying when the rescue would be risky). > > Now perhaps the poster knew this, but if that's so, then the > post was a pretty substantial oversimplification, to the point that it > was, I think, mistaken. And if the poster didn't know this, that > highlights the dangers of making flat assertions about what the law is > without sufficient expert knowledge of this area of the law. In either > case, posts such as this make the list less useful rather than more. > > The list custodian > > > I thought the question of an armed individual "duty to > > rescue" too narrow for just a discussion in the legal context > > since "duty to rescue" laws explicitly exclude the "duty" > > when acting would place your life in danger (even Jewish law > > has similar exclusions > > http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/assia_english/kirschenbaum.htm ). > > > > Since use of deadly force (e.g., threating some one with a > > gun) is illegal unless someone's life is in danger, unless > > you were in the situation of relative safety and viewed an > > attack endangering the life of a third person, you would have > > no legal "duty to rescue" by threatening deadly force. Even > > in those circumstances, legal "duty to rescue" is limited to > > cases where you are somehow responsible for the conditions > > that placed the life in peril. > > > > So, if we are limited to legal questions, the circumstances > > for an armed private person having the legal "duty to rescue" > > should be limited to cases where the person has created the > > peril somehow -- perhaps by knowingly allowed thugs to use > > his property for illegal activities and an attack is made by > > one of those thugs on his property. Then, if he sees this > > attack while he is armed, he might have the legal "duty to > > rescue" if he can do so from conditions of relative safety. > > > > In a nut shell, if you are armed and close enough to an > > attack that your life is in peril, you can legally respond to > > protect your life (or not if you want), if you are far enough > > from an attack that your life is not placed in peril by your > > respond, you still have no legal "duty to rescue" unless you > > are responsible for the circumstances leading to the life > > being placed in peril. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
