Replies

OK then.

In which case, my opinion is that if Tiller’s murderer was doing so as a matter of vengeance, he should, after he is convicted, given some sort of judicial sanction. Exactly what is contingent upon the laws of the state, the facts in the case, and the amount of risk that the individual would have to commit further crime if he’s not given a harsher sanction.

The other situation, that whoever murdered Tiller, was doing so to prevent future bloodshed, is a little bit more nuanced.

Neither the government, nor a private citizen, is allowed to execute a sentence on a potential criminal, based on their suspicion, no matter how serious that suspicion is, that a person will *potentially* commit a crime in the future. We are not living the movie Minority Report, after all.

We are allowed, on the other hand, to intervene to prevent the immediate loss of life. Alamo-Girl, in another thread, used a very apt analogy of a hunter, using a scoped rifle, observed a murder about to happen out in the woods. Would he be justified in pulling the trigger to prevent the crime from happening? My answer would be probably, but the hunter needs to be aware that he is gambling his own life that he is right.

That’s a good analogy she draws. Let me draw my own.

Let us say that you are in an area with the good old fashioned Cosa Nostra in it. If you happen to be walking down the city street and see a hit going down (i.e., guns drawn), you would most likely be justified to intervene to prevent the immediate crime from happening.

However, there is a legal concept of minimum force. A person must use minimum force to get the job done. If a crime can be prevented verbally (i.e., “put the gun down”), that is the force that should be used. If a crime can be prevented by physically subduing the individual, that is the force that should be used. The only way that deadly force is authorized is if, in the prudential judgment of the person using the force, it is the ONLY way to stop the immediate loss of life. For example, if shooting has started already. That’s why, in hostage situations, they bring in negotiators and try to talk the situation down, rather than immediately sending in SWAT.

Also, private persons are given far narrower prudential judgment than law enforcement officers. In most jurisdictions that I’m aware of, a private person can only use deadly force to prevent the loss of his own life or that of his family.

Continuing on with the Cosa Nostra example, stopping a hit in progress from going down is one thing; however, taking the life of the Don of a family, or even taking the life of the actual “soldier,” unless the individuals were actually in the act of performing the hit, would still be plain old murder...not self defense or defense of another.

That’s why I can’t agree with your statement that if Tiller’s murderer would be justified if his motivation was to prevent future bloodshed. He wasn’t walking down the street and happened to see Tiller about to crush an infant’s skull. He didn’t try minimum force to stop that immediate crime from happening. He isn’t any kind of an agent of the government, giving him right to investigate, enter private property, and prevent something from happening, nor did he do so. The person who gunned Tiller down did so at the point in time where there was no risk to the immediate loss of life. The same would have happened if Tiller had been in church, at his home, or at a restaurant or shopping mall.

The real crime is that what Tiller was doing is legal.

And, yes, I do believe that taking the life of an infant six months after fertilization and three months before birth is as repugnant as taking the life of my teen daughter. And I am insulted at you daring to ask me that question.