You are with your family at a local gathering place. All of the sudden shots break out, people start running and you are suddenly in front of a crazed person shooting indiscriminately at the crowd. You draw your legally concealed firearm, take aim and proceed to Bill Drill the hell out of the attacker. he goes down, gun clattering away on the floor and the threat is over.Investigation later determines that the shooter was some escaped lunatic who managed to get his hands on a gun and decided for reasons of his own deluded mind, that the Mall was full of aliens coming to test a new probe in his brain.
For most rational people, you have done the right thing. A rabid dog, a demented creature was rampaging through innocents and had to be stopped. But for some in academia, you should be shackled and sent to prison for murder. The reason? Alien Hating nutjob did not know what he was doing because he was crazy thus becoming an Innocent Aggressor and you are now guilty of murder/manslaughter.
I have read many books and articles by people who are so disconnected from real life I am amazed they even know in what planet they are being affected by the gravitational pull, but Arlette Grabczynska, & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan’s book review of Fiona Levereck’s Killing in Self Defence reach breakaway heights with their book review and it also gives you an insight on how an intellectual mind “thinks” without any regard for reality. According to the authors, there is no credible reason for the existence of Self Defense legally, morally or in any other shape or form. Your life is as “valuable” as the guy trying to snuff your lights out so you have no right to use deadly force. That your life might be lost in the process… well, too bad.
Both Ferzan & Grabczynska start with an erroneous mental premise that is not clearly stated but obvious as a shotgun aimed at your face: Self defense always leads to death. We know that death is one of the by-products that a criminal may face when confronting an armed victim but for the Intelligentsia this is not the case. From then, it is all downhill and begins a series of “conclusions” by the pair ending, if they had their druthers in making you a worse criminal in the eyes of the law than the real criminal who attacked you.
Here are some bon mots from Ferzan & Grabczynsk:
Ultimately the problem with a theory holding that one forfeits his life by virtue of becoming an unjust immediate threat is that it assigns the responsibility to the threat alone, but causation is itself insufficient for this assignment.
Leverick claims the victim has a right to life and therefore has a right to use lethal force to defend it. Of course, this does not necessarily follow. Sally might have a right to a book, but she may not be able to use force to defend that book, much less deadly force to defend the book. Leverick is not entitled to assume that a right to something entails that one has the right to use as much force as is necessary to prevent the violation of that right
By now you see why there are chin impressions on my tiled floor. And this are just two of many examples I could give and have your blood pressure rise to stroke levels. There should be some sort of “product testing” like in sending Ferzan & Grabczynska to a really nasty neighborhood wit a gun and see how far their intellectuality and “morality” lasts confronted by truly ugly human beings intent on no-shit harm.
I did forget to mention that both the original book and the review were published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology of Oxford University Press, England. I am guessing this kind of intellectual mindset is the reason Brit subjects are now going to jail for defending themselves. Download and print the article, it is about 13 pages long and safer to read it that way that throwing something at your computer in the face of utter stupidity.
Fiona Levereck’s Killing in Self Defence is available but it does not come cheap. I am so I’ll hunt down an used copy eventually and see what the fuss is all about. In the meantime God Help me from the influence of Fools with a framed piece of parchment on the wall.