if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?Apparently that's the way it is in most states. You can imagine how things might be different. People with guns could be given additional responsibility for the safety of unarmed people, so that they'd have to either prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were defending themselves against serious bodily harm instigated by the other person, or at least prove that it's more likely than not that they were doing so. That's a responsibility that can fairly be assigned to the person who has a lethal weapon, especially when the other person has iced tea and Skittles.
I wouldn't credit Eugene Volokh's accuracy in a political discussion.
Post a Comment