|
When someone engages in aggressive behavior, he or she should assume all the risk. There ought to be a concept in the law to this effect.
It is my opinion that, before someone commits an act of aggression, it should be incumbent upon him or her to predict all the possible negative fallout that might result from that action. This should be weighed in his or her mind before deciding to proceed with the aggressive act.
Therefore, even if the victim reacts in manner inconsistent with that of a reasonable person – including the use of unnecessary force, it shouldn't matter. The entire blame should still fall on the person who starts any physical confrontation.
For instance, if a person who is assaulted reacts by shooting the aggressor, too bad. Before attacking someone, one should realize that this is a chance that he or she is taking.
But what if, instead of grabbing a gun, knife, or other weapon, the victim has a temper tantrum which results in a fatal heart attack? In that case, the attacker should be charged with second degree murder, or at least voluntary manslaughter. He or she should have known this was a possibility.
Holding aggressors' feet to the fire by requiring them to assume all the risk for their behavior seems to me a reasonable first step toward a much needed zero tolerance policy for belligerence in our society.
|
tweet this!
