Is the right to self defense an inherent right?

I believe that every living creature not only has a basic survival instinct but also a basic (inherent) right to defend themselves when they are attacked. The recent Zimmerman case illustrated the right pretty well. There is no written "law" or amendment to the Constitution that gives anyone the right to defend themselves. So where does it come from if it is not inherent?

 

I think this information was an interesting read.

It's not meant to be a final word. Just something to consider.

 

While I agree every creature deserves the inherent ability to protect itself from harm....I do not accept the premise that one can confront and then use the reaction as a reason to do so in the realm of advanced sentient thought. The case you are referring to is doubtful, and not something to base this upon, as no one actually "Knows" the details in any way one can consider absolute....or even convincing.

In the animal kingdom such tactics are acceptable and in many ways advantageous....but we are something more than mere animal.

 

Exactly, we have the right to defend ourselves inherently because we can and we have the instinct to survive. That doesn't mean we have the right to goad somebody into a fight in order to shoot them, which is what I believe happened here.

 

I agree with that too.

I was not trying to make the case for anyone having a right to provoke, lure or to entrap someone -so you can claim a right to defend yourself against them.

 

One point to be taken in consideration is how far "self defense" might be considered, the paremeters of the action...

An owner shoot to the air when he saw strangers in his property and was charged.

A man who did beat a robber in his house was also charged by the injuries caused to the criminal.

So, defending yourself or your property can lead to your arrest.

But you can get free only and solely when you defend yourself and your case appears on TV...

 

Those are some great points - but that's not the question at hand.

"Do you have an inherent right to defend yourself if you are physically threatened or attacked?"

I say we do.

Partly because I even have the right to DEFEND that right - if someone is trying to take it away.

 

Not to be argumentative but then why do you believe that the Zimmerman case "illustrated the right pretty well"? I don't see the case and the concept as related at all.

John Locke, btw, claimed that ALL inherent rights were derived from the inherent right of self-defense, and many of the Founding Fathers were followers of him.

 

Thanks for the info on Locke.

As for the Zimmerman case - maybe it wasn't the best example.

However, the jury ruled not guilty and he effectively (by taking a beating first before pulling his gun) acted in self defense.

 

There is an obligation on the part of the aggressor to retreat.

Any lethal self-defense should still require court procedings to determine the facts, and excessive force or force mistakenly applied need to be considered a remediable tort.

 

I have no problem with that.

 

It's a bit odd that my normal opponents in these debates (who often claim that there is no such thing as an inherent right) are willing to register that as their opinion on this poll.

 

No. The words self defense are not in the wording of the second amendment. However current law does allow self defense with a weapon. It is the current encroachment of entitlement of weapons and the liberalization to when using a weapon that is causing the debate. It is one thing to shoot an intruder in your house, it is completely different to go searching for a "suspicious person." However the activist laws seem to be going the direction that one can shoot first, claim self defense later and then walk away not guilty.

 

Dixie, this thread is not limited to the 2nd Amendment or the use of guns.

The question is simple.

1. Do you have a right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

2. If you answered yes... is that right (in your opinion) an "inherent" right?

 

Rights are a human construct with no true existence.

 

That's a very common opinion.

However, I'll ask you the poll question again.

"Do you have an inherent right to defend yourself" if you are being attacked?

 

I doubt that. Most people seem to default to assumptions on moral
issues based on intuition and public attitude when there is no rational basis for it.

NO

 

If you were attacked - would you defend yourself (whether you have a right to do so) or not?

 

The Zimmerman case is a poor example of this. Both parties were major screw ups in this incident. Find a case that is clear cut and not as ambiguous as the Zimmerman case to make your point.

 

Do you own yourself?

 

YES

Ah! Some might say I'm owned by my wife and family... In fact, I believe I am owned by my wife and family.

But I'm interested in where you are going with this. So yes, for the sake of argument, I own myself. Please continue!

 

1. Okay.... What gives you the right to defend yourself - if you have no right to defend yourself?
2. What's the difference between "owning yourself" and "having a right to yourself or to defend yourself?"

 

Your wife may make a claim on you (mine does), but we both know that it is your choice to honor the claim and that you are probably better off doing what she damned well tells you. Anyway, if you claim ownership of yourself, then you must have the right, inherent in that ownership, to defend it.

 

I think the question is do people have a right to use excessive force...

if a man cheats on his wife and she comes after him with a frying pan, does he have the right to shoot her dead?

.

 

Those are good points - but those are for a different debate.

I don't think anyone here is claiming the right to use excessive force.