Suppose You’re invulnerable and someone comes at you with a knife with the full intent of killing you. How far are you allowed to go to defend yourself? The man attacking you has no possibility of actually harming you. Are you ethically bound to just stand there until he gets tired of stabbing you, or is his intent enough to allow you to respond with force? Would the law see any action you take as excessive force, seeing as you’re in no danger at any point under the attack? In this scenario there’s no bystanders in danger. The man’s target is you and you alone.
I don’t see how this would differ from, let’s say, an enraged toddler hitting you with an inflatable hammer. No matter how much the toddler wants to kill you, you’re still not allowed hit him back.
Would the situation be different if if you’re invulnerable but still able to feel pain like any normal human?
Invulnerable, as in immune to pain, or invulnerable as in will not die, or invulnerable as in can not be permanently damaged? Or some combination of the three?
I’d say you are allowed to stop the man from stabbing you and to restrain him until police arrive but you are not allowed to hurt the man. Well maybe hurt him a little if it happens in the process of restraining him like if you wrestled him to the ground and he got a bruise on his knee then that would be ok.
If you are totally invulnerable, unless you have an appointment or some reason to be in a hurry, you should just let them take their angst out on you, really. Laughing hysterically while someone is attacking you in a murderous rage must be so demoralising for the attacker.
Then again, I suppose it would depend on whether I was wearing my best threads. If someone started slashing up my fave coat, I’d be a little annoyed, to say the least.
You’re allowed to disarm an annoying toddler without breaking the law.
I should think it would depend on what exactly invulnerable means, and what else the invulnerable person can do. If by invulnerable you mean unkillable because of extremely fast healing–like, say, Wolverine–then I should hope the law would allow self-defense; Wolvie can feel pain, after all, and it’s not reasonable to expect him to allow himself to be put into agony without defending.
If invulnerable means impervious to direct physical injury and pain, but possessing no other particular talents–like, say, Laurel Kent–then I think you’d also be allowed to defend yourself from certain things. Laurel wouldn’t have to be passive while someone tried to unlawfully imprison her, even though that’s not a direct physical injury.
But if you’re Clark Kent–possessed not merely of invulnerablity but several other godlike talents–then no, I don’t suppose you’d be allowed to do violence against someone coming at you and you alone with a gun, because you’re not in fact in any more peril than if they were coming at you with a feather; and the person with the gun can’t imprison you, either. But Clark wouldn’t be really be motivated to do violence in that case, either, because, to him, a Glock 19 and Nerf pistol are basically the same thing. A Kryptonian who’s spent his life on Earth and had powers since he was 5 or 6 is not going to have an emotional reaction to a gun in the first place, and any violence he does is going to be suspect for that reason.
You’re not? I can see why I might choose not to, but I see no obligation to just sit there and take it. Besides, some toddlers got teeth and he might start using them when he figures out the inflatable hammer is useless.
On the hypothetical, I and many others have wondered about Superman calmly standing there and smiling while machine gun bullets bounce off his chest. Those ricochets hurt…
Yep, one has to take into consideration the well being of bystanders, sometimes even if you are invulnerable you have to defend to protect other [del]moths[/del] persons.
He’s still trying to murder an innocent person with an otherwise deadly weapon, so I wouldn’t be inclined to give him any credit just because his choice of victim sucks.
I’d say that you aren’t allowed to defend yourself (because legal defence limits you to the minimum amount of force required to ensure your safety, which in this case is zero), but you are allowed to perform a citizen’s arrest - the guy is after all committing battery. If aspects of this arrest resemble self defense that’s the attacker’s problem - though of course you’re still not allowed to use unnecessary force.
If I, knowing Clark Kent is Superman, mistakenly assume his wife is Supergirl, and come at her with my kryptonite ring; and Lois, being immune to short-term harm from kryptonite but still no pushover, proceeds to kick my ass; mustn’t she stop kicking once she’s taken the ring off my finger, or may she then stuff it down my throat?
Even if there are no bystanders right this moment, this guy has still demonstrated his willingness to commit murder, and may well do so again with a more squishy choice of target. I may not be justified in using lethal force against him, but it would certainly be a good deed for me to disarm him or otherwise ensure that he’s not capable of harming others. Since I’m invulnerable, I have the luxury of taking my time in doing this, which means I probably have less-violent and nonlethal means at my disposal to achieve this, and I have an imperative to use such means.
Invulnerable doesn’t mean super-strong, super-fast, or able to fly. Not necessarily. If you’re just invulnerable, you can still be confined. And if you’re Superman, you probably don’t give a good goddamn about people shooting at you anyway, as long as they don’t endanger your honeybun or one of your mortal friends.
I think the self-defense rules should apply the same to invulnerable people (under any definition of invulnerable) for a couple of reasons.
First, if invulnerable people weren’t allowed to defend themselves, I think it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the state to prove that a given person is in fact invulnerable.
Second, I think the rule regarding self-defense rests partially on allowing vigilante justice in very limited circumstances. That rationale isn’t reduced by the invulnerability of the victim/self-defender.
I could do this with a needle. Obviously I’d need consent - but they’re the one’s using non-invulnerability as a defense against unjustified used of force against an assailant; presumably they’d be bringing their own needles.
I completely disagree with this - the point isn’t vigilante justice, it’s self-defense. If you can defend yourself without exacting justice (by, say, running inside and locking the door) you are legally obligated not to come back outside with the shotgun.
ETA - this does not conflict with my earlier statement that civilian arrests are permitted - but civilian arrests are not vigilante justice.
Well, I was thinking the law would say “You are guilty of murder if you kill someone, except if you did so in self-defense; provided, however, that this exception doesn’t apply to invulnerable people.” Bob kills someone and says it was in self-defense. I think the state would need to prove that he’s invulnerable if they want to argue that the invulnerability exception to the self-defense exception applies. So how do they do that exactly?
The rule allowing self-defense exists. Exactly why it exists is up for debate. So, we can disagree, and that’s OK. Also, I only said that it “partially” rests on allowing vigilante justice in a limited circumstance–I did not say that “the point of” the rule allowing self-defense is vigilante justice.
In many jurisdictions, the law does not work as you have stated it . You have described a state that requires a person to retreat if they can do so safely. In many states, if a person is on your property and is threatening you, you can kill them even if you could have retreated safely. (And I think part of the reason for this is to allow vigilante justice in this limited circumstance.)
Which brings up the point that the person can still entrap you or imprison you somewhere nasty if they have superior numbers, or rape you for that matter. So there would be many scenarios where some level of self defense would be permissible.
By charging you with murder and requiring you to prove in your defense that the self-defense exception applies to you. (You’d have to do this anyway, mind, becuase not all situations where there’s one guy left standing and one guy dead are self-defense.)
I don’t think that any part of self defense is to allow vigilante justice, which would undercut using that as a justification for allowing superman to fight in self-defense.
Castle laws are separate things, which have little to do with the self-defense rules, and nothing to do with this hypothetical unless the property is invulnerable too.
