From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman  wrote:   
      
   > In article <1im4wmj.2mr6flupzyh9N%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
   >  zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
   >   
   > > Yes, if you resist by pointing a gun at people attempting to peacefully   
   > > arrest you, then they're justified in shooting you.  But they're not   
   > > shooting you for tax evasion, they're shooting you in self-defence.   
   >   
   > Would you generalize that beyond the government?   
   >   
   > A burglar breaks into my house. I confront him, with a gun. He shoots   
   > me.   
   >   
   > Was he acting in self defense?   
      
   In New Zealand, we can rely on the police to only bring guns to a   
   situation which already has the potential for violence.  Thus,   
   tax-evaders need not fear getting shot as long as they don't initiate   
   violence themselves.   
      
   A burglar is already breaking the law by breaking into your house, so   
   you already have reason to fear that they'll break the law further by   
   initiating violence -- particularly if you see them carrying a gun.  Of   
   course, as a law-abiding citizen, your gun and your ammunition are   
   locked in separate lockers, so in most urban situations you're more   
   likely to have time to bundle your entire family out the window and to   
   the next door neighbour's house than to have time to assemble the gun to   
   threaten the burglar; and the former would be safer for all involved   
   (unless perhaps you have reason to think it likely that someone's sent   
   someone to assassinate your family).   
      
   There's also an ambiguity in "acting".   
      
   The burglar isn't acting in self-defence in bringing a gun, whereas the   
   police who bring guns to a house where guns are being waved around are   
   acting in defence at least of others.   
      
   If you confront the burglar, then you're not (in most situations in New   
   Zealand) acting in self-defence either; it's not (morally in my view,   
   and legally in the law's) self-defence unless you didn't have the option   
   to avoid the confrontation.   
      
   If you call out to the burglar that you have a gun and are giving them   
   the opportunity to leave; but they remain, and then you seek them out   
   and they shoot you, then they're not acting in self-defence.   
      
   But if you seek out the burglar, block their escape, and raise a gun,   
   and then they shoot you, then I would say that /in that moment/ they   
   were acting in self-defence (even though in the broader context they   
   weren't because they chose to bring the gun).   
      
   In America, things are different because the law is different.  However,   
   my understanding is that even in America it's pretty uncommon for the   
   police to shoot tax-evaders who simply put their hands peaceably in the   
   air (whereas it's less uncommon for a burglar to do the same thing).   
   Thus a tax-evader who confronts the police with a gun is not acting in   
   self-defence in the same way as a homeowner who confronts a burglar   
   might be.  And society has a right to expect the police to protect it by   
   stopping people from initiating violence other than in self-defence.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)