Assuming a society completely based on the non-aggression principle:
There exists a convenience store where a man, armed with a knife, goes up to the counter and demands money out of the register. The clerk, having no way to defend himself, complies. As the money is being handed over, another shopper wallops the robber in the back of the head, killing him. The clerk claims that the shopper had no right to kill the robber, as the aggression occurred only between the two of them, and he would have only accepted a fine or imprisonment as retribution.
My question is, assuming the convenience store has no prior policies concerning this and the individuals involved are not under contract by an insurance or defense company to act differently, does the clerk have a valid claim, even though both they both acknowlege that the robber initiated the aggression? Thanks in advance for replies.
So a man kills a thief because he felt like playing trigger-happy cop. It seems to me that, from the point of view of natural law, he is a murderer. He was not acting in self-defense. He wasn’t even defending the clerk - it seems the clerk didn’t ask for help.
Indeed he didn’t. But not because of the clerk’s claim. He just had no ‘right to kill’, period.
The burden of proof should be on the theif. How do we know he didnt intend to take the store owner hostage and perhaps later on, kill him? He is commiting a hostile act that should be met with deadly force. You own a business in Argentina, correct? If I break in and hold you at gun point, but annouce I only intend to steal - does that mean you believe you wouldnt be justified in beating me within an inch of my life?
From the example, it seems that the death was not intended. The shopper assumed, wrongly, that the clerk would want his assistence. So, no he didn’t have a right to kill the robber. But if the clerk indeed did want assistance, then he would have had the right, considering the robber was demonstrating a willingness to use potentially leathal force.
Now, no reasonable person would want to convict the shopper. It seems he was just trying to do the right thing and repel another man’s aggression. Secondly, anyone trying to prosecute him would have to do so as an agent of the robber, since it is only him who has been allegedly wronged. Now how could they argue against the shooper’s actions considering he was demonstrating his willingness to use lethal force against the clerk.
But he killed the robber anyway…Maybe one can avoid paying damages by claiming “I didn’t mean to…” ?
Well, so the shopper clearly made a mistake. Whose fault is that ?
Why ? Because it’s something that trigger happy people think is reasonable ?
Was he hired to do that ?
An ad-hoc assumption ? He had a knife (fact) and threatened the clerk with it (fact) - the bit about “willingness to use lethal force” is your guess, not fact.
Anyway, I agree that the thief was asking for trouble, but that doesn’t mean that the shopper is in the right.
Well, the clerk has no claim in that sense since the shopper did not damage the clerk’s person or property. On the other hand the shopper has no justification for what he did since he was not personally threatened and nobody asked him to do anything.
False. If a woman was being raped and had her face/mouth covered, I am not personally threatened and haven’t been asked for help, however I absolutley would be justified in coming to her aid.
The robber deserved what he got. The shopper shouldn’t owe any damages to the estate of the robber because they are estopped by the communicated willingness to use potentially leathal force on the part of the armed robber.
It’s the shopper’s fault. But he doesn’t need the clerk’s permission to begin with, so it’s irrelevant to determining the guilt of the shopper.
No, because any courageous civilized person in a similar situation would assume that the clerk would want assistance and would therefore be charitable.
Nobody. I don’t see why he needs to be considered an agent of the clerk to be absolved in this scenario.
The shopper would likely argue that he believed the robber would have been willing to use lethal force. Why not take his testimony on face value?
Well, if it’s irrelevant why did you bring it up ?
But yes, it is irrelevant. The fact is that the shopper’s life was not threatened. He killed a man because he wanted to play hero, and was bad at it. It’s his fault. Now, I imagine that when people act like right wing nuts, you believe they are absolved from individual responsibility ?
Blah blah. So touching. Except that it was made clear that the clerk DID NOT want your oh so wonderful ‘charity’. Remember charity is offered and accepted (or not). No charity in sight here.
Well, if the clerk was about to get killed and asked for help, the shopper would have a reason to stop or maybe even kill the thief. But that was not the hypothetical case.
Why take it ? It’s just something you are making up.
What I was asserting was that you don’t have to be personally threatened or asked for help in order to interevene when there is violence being committed.
So Juan, why would anyone in your ideal “libertarian” world want to risk stopping a thief, rapist, etc if they would simply be prosecuted if the perpetrator got killed in the process?
I’m asking as well. You take for granted that thieves armed with a knife can be summarily executed ?
So ?
This shouldn’t be controversial. If you think that what you did for me was helpful to me, but I disagree, I’m afraid I have the last word. If the clerk is a pacifist, you’re not helping him by killing in his name are you ?