Argument one: A citizen cannot surrender his lethal weapon, to a suspected criminal, who is both desperate enough to take on a gun, and violent enough to use force against him. The citizen is in a valid belief that his life is in danger should possession of the gun be lost. Therefore he is justified in using lethal force to protect himself. Note: Case law in dozens of police shootings support this position - try to wrestle a cop's gun of him, and you will be justifiably shot.
Argument two: ....?
What exactly is argument two that you find to be a "solid argument".
Argument two: a citizen is being pursued by two armed men in a motor vehicle. The armed men are not uniformed police officers, so the citizen cannot discern whether they are trying to perform an arrest or trying to kill him. Since he is on foot and his pursuers are in a vehicle, he believes he cannot flee. The citizen is in a valid belief that his life is in danger and cannot flee, and therefore resorts to grabbing the weapons of the pursuer in order to defend himself.
Here's the thing though: I believe both arguments are compelling. And I don't know how to resolve this. Given both arguments, we have arrived at the conclusion that both men are acting in self-defense. Which shouldn't be possible. But I don't see a way out of this.
If you are able to pick my argument apart, I would welcome it. This contradiction has been bothering me ever since I heard about what happened. But I cannot think of a way to resolve it. So if there's an error in my argument or if there's something I'm missing, I welcome counterarguments.
Argument one: A citizen cannot surrender his lethal weapon, to a suspected criminal, who is both desperate enough to take on a gun, and violent enough to use force against him. The citizen is in a valid belief that his life is in danger should possession of the gun be lost. Therefore he is justified in using lethal force to protect himself. Note: Case law in dozens of police shootings support this position - try to wrestle a cop's gun of him, and you will be justifiably shot.
Argument two: ....?
What exactly is argument two that you find to be a "solid argument".
Argument two: a citizen is being pursued by two armed men in a motor vehicle. The armed men are not uniformed police officers, so the citizen cannot discern whether they are trying to perform an arrest or trying to kill him. Since he is on foot and his pursuers are in a vehicle, he believes he cannot flee. The citizen is in a valid belief that his life is in danger and cannot flee, and therefore resorts to grabbing the weapons of the pursuer in order to defend himself.
Here's the thing though: I believe both arguments are compelling. And I don't know how to resolve this. Given both arguments, we have arrived at the conclusion that both men are acting in self-defense. Which shouldn't be possible. But I don't see a way out of this.
Oh wow, they are not equal arguments, not even close.
If you are able to pick my argument apart, I would welcome it. This contradiction has been bothering me ever since I heard about what happened. But I cannot think of a way to resolve it. So if there's an error in my argument or if there's something I'm missing, I welcome counterarguments.