Meh, I don't see this case one way or another. Both sides make a solid argument, just as both the jogger and the shooter both made mistakes. I chalk this one up as a draw, and it ended the way it ended with no winners, but it doesn't deserve this amount of attention. Where are the posts in memory of the hundreds of deaths by black on black gang violence in Chicago? Don't black lives matter, right?
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.
The reason that you think that it shouldn't be possible for both to act in self-defense is likely because you apply an assumption often used in economics, that of perfect knowledge for those involved.
If people are assumed to have limited knowledge of situations, then it stops being impossible.
Both arguments can be true, so the question becomes, was the McMichaels justified in attempting a citizens arrest?
Meh, I don't see this case one way or another. Both sides make a solid argument, just as both the jogger and the shooter both made mistakes. I chalk this one up as a draw, and it ended the way it ended with no winners, but it doesn't deserve this amount of attention. Where are the posts in memory of the hundreds of deaths by black on black gang violence in Chicago? Don't black lives matter, right?
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.
The reason that you think that it shouldn't be possible for both to act in self-defense is likely because you apply an assumption often used in economics, that of perfect knowledge for those involved.
If people are assumed to have limited knowledge of situations, then it stops being impossible.
Both arguments can be true, so the question becomes, was the McMichaels justified in attempting a citizens arrest?