Responsible Fist Owner... Er, the Right of Self Defense

Note: The "victim's" mugshot shows clear signs of a serious beating. Don't click the link if you're squeamish about that sort of thing.



http://ift.tt/1Hpd1Ib

Investigators stopped short of saying who exactly beat Mattson, but said the person was "acting in defense for the victim."

I know this particular case is about the use of violence in defense of others, but I actually want to talk about the use of violence in defense of self. I consider self-defense to be the "cornerstone" case: Without the right to self defense, there can't be a right to defend others.



I think it might be helpful in gun control debates, to get some clarity on the fundamental principles involved. The one I'm interested in focusing on here is the principle of self defense. If you have other principles in mind, feel free to bring them up in context, or start separate threads for them.



So. Imagine that the victim in this case had beaten the rapist herself--i.e., used violent force to stop the rape and drive off or subdue the rapist. Would she have been within her rights to do so? Does a right to self defense even exist? What about the rapist's alleged rapist's right to due process? Is it morally justifiable to use violence against him, before he's even had his day in court? Should the rape victim be put on trial for what she did?























ETA: I know, I know -- wrong subforum. I've already reported the thread and asked for it to be moved. Sorry 'bout that!

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1rPtfXb