Self Defense is All About the Victim – not the attacker

Published by the Author on December 27, 2009 at 12:01 am > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Self Defense is All About the Victim – not the attacker

I recently received an email which discussed the idea that a crime victim might not be justified in using deadly force against an attacker, if that attacker were themselves a “victim” of their situation.  The idea was that shooting an uneducated and impoverished attacker in self defense might be wrong because the attacker is themselves the “victim of an unjust society.”  Even if, just for the sake of argument, the attacker really were the victim of an unjust society and therefore not culpable for his violent actions, the crime victim would still be justified in using deadly force to save themselves from the attack:

Self defense is about the victim, not the attacker

First and foremost, self defense is about the victim’s right to defend themselves against physical violence.  It is not about the attacker.  The idea that self defense actions should be limited due to reduced culpability on the part of a criminal is without merit.

The fact that courts consider a criminal’s circumstances (e.g. childhood abuse, reduced intelligence, etc.) when sentencing that criminal doesn’t tell us anything about the propriety of self defense actions against that criminal. That is because trying to equate the two ignores the profoundly different goals of self defense and the sentencing of a criminal:  As already stated, the purpose of self defense is to save the victim. Sentencing a criminal, on the other hand, has several goals including punishment and rehabilitation.  When evaluating the proper punishment for the criminal, it is necessary to inquire into their level of culpability, since the worst criminals logically deserve the worst sentences.  Similarly, when evaluating a sentence that will (hopefully) lead to rehabilitation, it is also necessary to inquire into the circumstances of the criminal’s life to see what went wrong.

ALSO READ:  US Department of Justice: Fight Back Against Rapists

A pair of (sad and extreme) examples to illustrate that point

Although the following examples were unpleasant to think up and reduce to writing, I think that they illustrate the above point quite well:

Imagine the hypothetical situation where a criminal named Alice goes to an innocent and peace-loving person named Bob, and tells Bob that he must go fatally stab another innocent person named Charlie.  Also imagine that Alice is holding Bob’s wife and children hostage, and will kill them unless Bob goes and stabs Charlie.  Bob is in a terrible situation that is not of his making, and is truly a victim in his own right.  However, that doesn’t mean that Charlie can’t shoot Bob in self defense.  Instead, Charlie has the legal and moral right to defend himself when Bob tries to stab him.  That right arises out of Charlie’s existence as a human, and is not conditioned upon Bob being a “bad guy.”  Nor would Charlie’s self defense actions convert Charlie into a wrongdoer.

As another example, consider the hypothetical situation of a severely developmentally disabled man named Dan, whose lacks the mental faculties to understand right from wrong or conform his behavior to the law.  Imagine that, to the extent he is capable of it, Dan is generally a nice guy. Further imagine that Dan carries a deadly and communicable disease (e.g. HIV.)  If Dan were to attempt to sexually assault an innocent person named Elane, it would be morally and legally acceptable for Elane to fatally shoot Dan in self defense.  This remains true despite the lack of any criminal intent behind Dan’s actions, since it is Elane’s right to defend herself against rape and a deadly disease that are at issue.  Dan is himself a victim of his situation, but his lack of culpability in no way diminishes Elane’s basic human right to protect herself.

Tags for this article: ,

  • right as rain

    So your saying that reguardless if a drug dealer takes a gun thats ready to fire, from the safety of his home, out into the street and aims it at something , fires , not once, not twice but three times, he is still considered a victim. Now he had a choice and chose not to call the police, because of course he does sell illegal drugs. He is still a victim. Mr. Eyels and Mr. MacFarlane are a product of and made dependant on Mr. Gallick. He is still a victim. Excuse me if i don't get your reasoning. I believe guns don't kill people ,people kill people. Drug addiction does not discriminate. Anyone regardless of their education and social backgrounds, geographical living area or stature in society can , will and are addicts. they do not have control over these demons. Hopefully Mr. MacFarlane will get the help he most obviously and desparetly needs now that this tragic incident happened. As for Mr. Gallick he will continue to sell painkillers and heroine to the youths of our community. Because he is made to be a hero. God help us all.

  • homesecurity

    Self-defense or self-defense; see spelling differences is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one’s property or the well-being of another from physical harm

  • unnamed

    Unfortunately this is no longer “The Wild West”