Let’s say I’m a convicted murderer with a scheduled execution date.
The night before my death date, a guard comes into my cell and explains that I’m not going to survive long enough to be executed, and attacks me with a knife. Presumably I have the right to defend myself even to the point of killing my attacker should that be necessary. Is this correct?
Same scenario, except that I’m on the way to the death chamber. Have my rights changed? How or why?
Or, I’m strapped into the gurney awaiting the syringe. By supreme effort, I manage to tear myself loose and hit the executioner moments before he hits the plunger. Have my rights changed? When and why did that happen?
Is there any RW history of prisoners struggling to defend themselves against executioners?
You don’t have the right to defend yourself against your state-sanctioned executioner. In theory, you would have the right to defend yourself against the guard the night before your execution, if he was trying to kill you on his own behalf. Likewise on the way to the execution chamber, again providing that someone was trying to kill you - not because you are trying to escape or resist the execution.
As this is GQ, I will leave the idea of RW history vs. any other kind of history alone. In general, you don’t have the right to defend yourself against the state if the state action is consequent to due process. That’s why there are laws against trying to escape from prison - it isn’t kidnapping if you have been convicted and sentenced, and it isn’t murder if you have been tried and condemned. If you killed the person who was appointed to execute you, that would be murder.
You also don’t have the right to defend yourself against someone against whom you initiated violence. If I try to kill you and you pull a gun against me, I don’t have the right to defend myself against you. If I kill someone and am convicted of murder, I don’t have the right to defend myself when society executes me.
I seem to recall a “stand your ground” case where a property owner chased down a thief and killed him with a knife. He was not charged – his claim was that he feared the thief might attack him by swinging the bag of swag. This muddies the water some, I suppose, but I believe this property owner both initiated the violence and retained his right of self-defense.
Outside of that there is a thing called “fighting words” which can limit your right to self defense. Calling someone a bunch of nasty names and then claiming your use of force was self defense when he tries to beat your ass isn’t going to fly.
Yes. Not any with weapons that I can recall. If they don’t have weapons, they simply bring in several guards to drag the prisoner. No unarmed person can defend against four people trained in cooperative neutralization no matter how strong they are. My cite is my mom, who in her years before she retired was never a physically imposing person*, but said that she never had a problem immobilizing a non-compliant patient if she had help.
*In her prime, it was another story. She still didn’t look big but when I was a teen she once spontaneously did a fireman’s carry on me. Still had less muscle than the average man, but you don’t need it when there are four of you.
In another thread I was told that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” were Natural Rights.
If life is a Natural Right, does the State have the right to take it away? Is one supposed to automatically give up that Natural Right when ordered to do so?
This is why I feel the George Zimmerman decision was wrong.
Trayvon Martin was walking down a public street, unarmed, and was not committing any crime or other act inciting violence. He was then chased by an armed stranger who was trying to catch him. I think Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be the victim of an armed mugging and was justified in standing his ground and defending himself. (Even if Martin wasn’t aware Zimmerman was armed he could see a person pursuing him for no reason. And Martin’s initial response was to attempt to leave the area rather than confront Zimmerman.)
I think it was Zimmerman who initiated the act by attempting to chase down and stop Martin. That should have severely limited Zimmerman’s subsequent right to claim that he was acting in self-defense when the situation he started escalated into violence. Zimmerman should have been treated like a street mugger who shot one of his unarmed victims for resisting.
But in the court of public opinion, Martin (who was unable to speak up in his own defense) became the person who initiated the confrontation and Zimmerman was able to portray himself as the victim who was acting in self-defense.
Absent a “stand your ground” law, there is frequently a “duty to retreat”, which basically means that if running away is a viable alternative to using deadly force, you must run away.
That’s not he claim in the statement. The statement says calling someone * a bunch of *names (indicating deliberate provoking, and hinting at doing so in a taunting manner). It doesn’t say doing that gives someone else the right to attack you, just that your claiming self-defence will likely not be very effective under those circumstances.
Since that ruling there have been additional cases that refine and narrow the scope of what “fighting words” are or aren’t. But rude words by themselves clearly fall outside that definition.
