re: #199 erik_t

We all agree, presumably, that there’s a reasonable level of escalation on the part of the attacked. If they point a gun at you, you can feel quite reasonable in shooting before they do, for example. On the other hand, if they go at you with a novelty hand-buzzer then the escalation to use of a deadly weapon is prooobably excessive.

There are two questions that stem from this. First, what is the appropriate bound on level of escalation? Can you shoot someone who points a gun at you? Wields a knife? From five feet or fifty? Punches you in the face? Punches you in the arm? I submit that our individual responses will scatter somewhat along this distribution.

The second question is translating ‘appropriate’ to ‘criminal’. In the heat of the moment (which is presumably almost universally true in an attack), what is the appropriate bound on a person’s fight-or-flight reflex? You might submit that escalation-degree-A is appropriate when you’re sitting on your pondering couch, but 2A is what your brain thinks is sensible when the adrenaline kicks in. What’s the scatter on that multiplicative factor? What’s the appropriate bound that should be set by the law?

(answer: hell if I know, and hell if I know)

But this young black could have thrown tea at me, or, or…pelted me with Skittles!