This is a bit off my beaten track but I worked for many years on the phenomenon of 'aggression'. This is a difficult concept to 'tie down' as, although it clearly has to include actions that could damage another individual and be 'deliberate' (rather than accidental), behaviours classed as 'defence' (of one's self, one's one's family or one's country) can also include the same features. There is a fair degree of ambiguity in terms of which label is applied. This complexity is taken one stage further in a sad case in Kentucky where a 27-year old, emergency room technician, Breonna Taylor, was fatally shot 8 times by 3 policemen (
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/10/breonna-taylor-killing-officers-may-never-be-arrested). The real oddity was that this occurred in her own home. The police were apparently conducting a 'no knock', narcotics raid (no drugs were later found). Breonna's boyfriend, it is said, assumed they were being invaded by criminals and fired first as the police burst in. He was legally allowed to do this because the 'castle doctrine',where house-holders can use lethal force in 'defence' of their property, applies in that state, . In the words of a US Law expert, "most states don't allow someone to claim self defense when they are the aggressor"(in this case, the police). He also said, "most states also say that when police are acting in an official capacity, they can't be aggressors for purposes of self defense law". As it stands, the boyfriend and the police can both claim self defense and nobody has been charged with Breonna's death. Clearly, 'no-knock raids' and the 'castle doctrine' are incompatible, a fact that should have been self-evident to law makers. In this case, the law's an ass!
No comments:
Post a Comment