Tweet
Local artist dragged 1/2 mile by van, left bleeding in the street.
That was the newspaper headline when this story began - hold on for the rest of the story...
Two men were in a bar. The 'local artist' began hasslling the men (calling them 'faggots' and that sort of thing). The men left the bar and got into their van too leave, but the 'artist' followed them out and began punching the driver through his window. At this point the driver shifted into gear and drove off, but the assailant got caught up in the seat belt and was pulled along.
The driver admitted in court that he knew he was dragging the assailant, but said he was afraid if he stopped he would be attacked again. The prosecution argued that he should have stopped much sooner and freed the 'artist' from the seat belt and this was the crux of the case – not whether the driver was assaulted, but whether the driver used reasonable force in self defense.. The driver was convicted of vehicular assault.
I am thinking about this case because it brushes up against an issue that gets regularly discussed on this forum and another one that does not.
The most obvious issue here is the legal ‘continum of force’ which allows a person to defend himself with only as much force as needed to remove the threat. It’s a vague standard but it makes some sense from the point of view of a civilized society. We can’t, after all, have people shooting each other at the slightest provocation and calling it self defense.
The other side to this coin though, is that maybe some people should get shot. Let’s call this the ‘he should’ve f***kin’ known f***kin’ better defense (from a scene in Pulp Fiction which addresses the same topic). To use the above case to illustrate; the artist in that scenario flat out attacked someone with no provocation at all. He (the artist) didn’t care if his victim lost his teeth, or had a heart attack or whatever else. What happened that makes the case meaningful is that the assailant ended up paying the price for his sociopathic behavior rather than the victim. Did he deserve to be dragged along beside a car and suffer ‘permanent disfigurement’ (the papers wording)? Maybe he did not, but his victim didn’t deserve to be chased out of a bar and punched either and the victim didn’t start it – the artist started it.
It reminds me of the old Clint Eastwood movies where the quiet stranger drifts into town and immediately gets beat up by the bad guys who have been terrorizing the locals. Then Clint goes on a killing rampage and wipes out the bad guys to the man. Did anyone watch those movies and say “well Clint's character sure exceeded the reasonable force needed to escape the situation, didn’t he”? No, we watched with glee while thugs and villains got exactly what they had coming.
Now, I’m really not advocating ‘Pale Rider’ type gunfights and vigilantism, but I am questioning whether the proper role of a ‘good citizen’ is to avoid and minimize every confrontation. I suggest that punishing people who successfully defend themselves at the expense of their assailants, equals protecting the assailants from the natural consequences of their actions.
Comments please
That was the newspaper headline when this story began - hold on for the rest of the story...
Two men were in a bar. The 'local artist' began hasslling the men (calling them 'faggots' and that sort of thing). The men left the bar and got into their van too leave, but the 'artist' followed them out and began punching the driver through his window. At this point the driver shifted into gear and drove off, but the assailant got caught up in the seat belt and was pulled along.
The driver admitted in court that he knew he was dragging the assailant, but said he was afraid if he stopped he would be attacked again. The prosecution argued that he should have stopped much sooner and freed the 'artist' from the seat belt and this was the crux of the case – not whether the driver was assaulted, but whether the driver used reasonable force in self defense.. The driver was convicted of vehicular assault.
I am thinking about this case because it brushes up against an issue that gets regularly discussed on this forum and another one that does not.
The most obvious issue here is the legal ‘continum of force’ which allows a person to defend himself with only as much force as needed to remove the threat. It’s a vague standard but it makes some sense from the point of view of a civilized society. We can’t, after all, have people shooting each other at the slightest provocation and calling it self defense.
The other side to this coin though, is that maybe some people should get shot. Let’s call this the ‘he should’ve f***kin’ known f***kin’ better defense (from a scene in Pulp Fiction which addresses the same topic). To use the above case to illustrate; the artist in that scenario flat out attacked someone with no provocation at all. He (the artist) didn’t care if his victim lost his teeth, or had a heart attack or whatever else. What happened that makes the case meaningful is that the assailant ended up paying the price for his sociopathic behavior rather than the victim. Did he deserve to be dragged along beside a car and suffer ‘permanent disfigurement’ (the papers wording)? Maybe he did not, but his victim didn’t deserve to be chased out of a bar and punched either and the victim didn’t start it – the artist started it.
It reminds me of the old Clint Eastwood movies where the quiet stranger drifts into town and immediately gets beat up by the bad guys who have been terrorizing the locals. Then Clint goes on a killing rampage and wipes out the bad guys to the man. Did anyone watch those movies and say “well Clint's character sure exceeded the reasonable force needed to escape the situation, didn’t he”? No, we watched with glee while thugs and villains got exactly what they had coming.
Now, I’m really not advocating ‘Pale Rider’ type gunfights and vigilantism, but I am questioning whether the proper role of a ‘good citizen’ is to avoid and minimize every confrontation. I suggest that punishing people who successfully defend themselves at the expense of their assailants, equals protecting the assailants from the natural consequences of their actions.
Comments please
Comment