Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

"Thoughts on the Ferguson Verdict" - Talking Philosophy

#1
C C Offline
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=8283

EXCERPT: [...] According to the information released to the public, there is evidence that Brown had close contact with Wilson, which is consistent with Wilson’s claim that Brown attacked him and tried to take his gun. Brown died a considerable distance from Wilson and this raises the legal and moral question of whether or not Wilson still had an “objectively reasonable” belief that Brown still presented a threat that could only be dealt with by lethal force. The grand jury decided that he did, which settles the legal aspect of the case. However, there is still the matter of the moral aspect—was Wilson actually warranted in killing Brown?

On the one hand, when one considers that Brown was unarmed and too far from Wilson to attack him, then it would be reasonable to consider that Wilson was not justified in killing Brown. On the other hand, if Brown appeared to be charging towards Wilson, then Wilson could be justified in shooting him. Since Wilson was not shot in the back, it does seem clear that Brown was facing Wilson—but facing someone is not the same thing as being a threat. Unfortunately, there is no video of the incident and the eye-witness reports conflict (and eye-witness reports, even given in all honesty, are not very reliable). Since Brown is dead, we only have Wilson’s side of the story. As such, one cannot be certain whether Wilson was justified or not, assuming a right to kill when one has an “objectively reasonable” belief that one is threatened.

This principle can, of course, be challenged. Some people take the principle to set a very low threshold—an officer just has to feel threatened in order to be warranted to use deadly force. This, as might be imagined, can be seen as a threshold that is too low. Some states do give citizens the same right (against other citizens) as shown in the various infamous stand your ground laws and these have proven rather problematic. Others take the view that the principle itself is reasonable—after all, it essentially expresses John Locke’s principle that force can be used to protect one’s life or the lives of the innocent. But, even if the principle is reasonable, there is also the question of whether or not it is applied correctly. My view is that the use of lethal force requires a comparable threat to justify it, on the principle of a proportional response. That said, one must also consider the practicalities of combat situations—it can be difficult to judge intent and the heat of a fight can easily change a person’s perceptions....


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Voters deliver brutal verdict on Liz Truss + Protest blocks emergency vehicles (UK) C C 5 199 Oct 22, 2022 05:35 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Boycott Russian science (and everything else) – thoughts on war in Ukraine C C 0 59 Mar 23, 2022 04:17 PM
Last Post: C C
  Columbus police fatally shoot teen girl as Chauvin verdict announced C C 1 120 Apr 21, 2021 04:38 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Biden already talking about resigning Syne 1 207 Dec 10, 2020 06:20 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)