Thought Experiment (Duty to Escape)

[Laelth]

Imagine yourself in the following situation:

You are strapped into a chair and immobilized. On armrest of the chair is a keypad with two buttons: Button #1 and Button #2. The chair is positioned in the middle of a road, and a car is bearing down on you at 60 miles per hour. You know that if you don't push one of the two buttons, the car is going to hit you, and it will hurt ... a lot. In fact, the impact is likely to be fatal. You also know that there's a real, live person (perhaps someone you don't like) driving the car. Here's what you know, without any doubt, that the two buttons do:

Button #1 causes a large trap door to open in front of you. If you push it, the car will fall into the trap. The driver of the car will be either injured or killed, but you will not be physically harmed in any way.

Button #2 causes a small trap door to open directly beneath you. If you push it, the chair you're sitting on will drop down about six feet. You will not be harmed by the drop, and the car will simply pass over you. The driver of the car will not be injured.

Which button do you push?

-Laelth

[Laelth]

1. This poll was inspired by the discussion ...

in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x524388

Under the common law (which Kentucky's new "shoot first" law seeks to replace) you have a duty to escape when you are threatened with deadly force (unless you're in your house). Under the common law, you may only use deadly force in self-defense, and that means in situations when you're in danger of serious bodily injury and when you can not escape from the danger (unless, again, you're in your house in which case you have no duty to escape). Kentucky's legislature seeks to do away with the duty to escape and instead say, basically, that you can use deadly force to protect yourself wherever you are and regardless of whether or not you could have escaped the danger. That, as I understand it, is what these laws are about. I know that Florida has passed a similar law. I was astounded by the support that I saw for this law in the above-referenced thread. So, I thought I'd poll GD and see what a wider range of Democrats thought about it.

Thanks for participating. BTW, "duty to escape" is also called, sometimes, a "duty to retreat" (just in case that was confusing).

-Laelth

[Mythsaje]

4. I voted for two...

But, on the other hand, there are a lot of variables. Is the person who strapped you to the chair the one who's going to run you over? If I knew that for sure, there's a good chance I'd push #1.

If you use it as a comparison with the "shoot first" law, there are a couple of other variables as well. If you're in a position to protect yourself ON THE SPOT, and are left with the opportunity to flee and (possibly) take a bullet in the back, or encounter the same threat mere moments later in a less advantageous circumstance (say at the end of a blind alley you ran down to escape the threat) you may suffer an even worse fate than was originally intended for you and will, in fact, have gained nothing by seeking to flee rather than taking the shot you had originally.

Not to say that I necessarily support the "shoot first" law, or anything like it, but I don't think this is quite the cut-and-dried issue the analogy paints.

[Laelth]

8. I hear ya.

I set up the thought experiment so that in it you know, for certain, that you can safely escape. As someone who's trained in the law, I want your opinion about whether one ought to be under a duty to escape when they know they can do so safely.

Ultimately, self-defense is easy to prove. If there was a reasonable chance that you might take a bullet in the back if you tried to escape, you've got an excellent self-defense case. Most juries would say you couldn't safely escape under these circumstances. As such, using deadly force in self-defense would be justified, as it always has been, under the common law. No, these "shoot first" laws remove the duty to escape when you know you can do so safely, and that's what I'm curious about. I tried to eliminate the variables you describe because I don't really want to know what people would do. I want to see what we think the legal repercussions ought to be.

Thanks for your response.

-Laelth

[johnaries]

29. I voted for 2, also. But if I thought the person would attempt to

hurt me again in the future, I would be more likely to try to injure or kill them to avoid future attempts.

[Mythsaje]

31. Yeah, that was going on

in the back of my head as well...

[Inland]

10. Then to have a proper analogy, you would have to

have button number two either drop you two feet or four feet or six feet, and you wouldn't know which or what your odds are. That's the jist of these "self defense" laws: they take into account that there isn't a *certain* safe retreat, and my suggestion is that in the case where button no. 2 leads to an uncertain result, a lot more people are going to presson no. 1 on the concept that it's his fault, not yours. I don't like the laws, but that is the problem it is dealing with.

[Laelth]

14. The jury would acquit you.

If there was any reasonable risk that you might have been injured if you tried to retreat, the jury would likely acquit you if the DA even bothered to bring charges against you. The question here is, should you be under a duty to retreat when you know you can do so safely? These laws are eliminating that duty.

-Laelth

[president4aday]

2. How do you know what you'd do....

in this situation, if you've never been in this situation?

[gristy]

3. Your question is interesting.

It is a hypothetical question. Why do you think you cannot answer it if you have never been in this situation.

[president4aday]

7. No one can say what they would do .....

They can only say what they have done.

[gristy]

17. If you came to a fork in the road in Kansas, and you have never been

in Kansas, and you know for a fact that your hotel is a mile down the left fork, and you want to get to your hotel as soon as possible, and by all the information available to you, you believe that by taking the left fork you will get to your hotel faster than if you took the right fork, which fork would you take?

[president4aday]

23. Whenever I come to a fork in the road, ....I take it !

[president4aday]

24. Everbody still pushing their belly buttons?

[Laelth]

30. Bellybuttons are good.

But at the moment, sadly, my question is legal in nature and not aesthetic. ;)

-Laelth

[StClone]

5. Absolute versus Possible

I may have not thought enough about this but the inference you given is that in one case the outcome is controlled and knowable. In the other the threat is "perceived" There is a difference.

[Laelth]

12. Hmm ...

I must have written the problem poorly. ;)

The outcome is supposed to be certain and known, in both cases.

-Laelth

[Wcross]

6. I would push both buttons.

Why should I let someone else determine my fate? What if my trap door was too slow and I couldn't get away?

[Laelth]

9. Did I write the problem poorly?

I thought I said, very clearly, that "you know, without any doubt" that both buttons will work as described.

-Laelth

[Wcross]

16. No poll option for both buttons. n/t

[Laelth]

20. That was intentional.

Using deadly force under these circumstances can't be both criminal and non-criminal at the same time. The legislators have to make a decision, one way or the other.

-Laelth

[Freedom_Aflaim]

11. #2 is the obvious choice in this perfected situation

with perfect information and perfect solutions.

Is this the climax of that new James Bond Movie?

[Laelth]

46. Yes, for most of us it does seem to be obvious.

But why, then, are laws that make it legal to push Button #1 so popular? Someone on DU told me that the Florida "shoot first" or "stand your ground" law passed unanimously in the Florida Senate. Why would that be if most of us feel that escape (or retreat) is the right thing to do?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[Sheri]

47. Big difference

between asking us what we would do and asking what we think should be legal.

IMHO

[Freedom_Aflaim]

13. Button #1 is proably a better choice

Since the killer in the car will just stop, get out shoot you while you are stuck in the hole and still strapped to the table.


:)

[Laelth]

15. Hehe ...

Nope. The problem says, very clearly that if you push Button #1 "you will not be physically harmed in any way."

-Laelth

[OffWithTheirHeads]

18. Keyword "perhaps"

someone you don't like. Not close enough for me. If you had said the driver was Carl Rove, Pissypants, or any of the neo-nazis that hate America, the choice wouldn't have been a choice. Terminate with extreme prejudice, eos.

[Laelth]

22. Good point.

So, let me rephrase. Regardless of who was in the car, should it be a crime to push button #1?

Under the common law, pushing Button #1 is a crime. The common law requires that you push Button #2 under these circumstances. "Shoot first" laws, on the other hand, make it not a crime to push button #1 (as I understand the intent of these laws).

-Laelth

[rpgamerd00d]

49. But that person is knowingly bearing down on you to kill you....

[Laelth]

50. Yep. That's true.

But they haven't hurt you yet. They're just trying to. Does that give you the right to kill them when you could, instead, escape and not harm them? That's the question I'm trying to get opinions about.

-Laelth

[Sheri]

19. I wonder what the freeper's version ...

... of this poll would look like? Most people seem to intuit, deep down, that you have a duty to retreat when you can and avoid using deadly force unless you have to for self-defense. So, are these laws just attempts by Repukes to create another wedge issue? I often think so.

I can hear the freepers now ... "look, jim bob," them DUmmies are bein' wusses again. they're takin' a reasonable position that most Americans agree with. they's sooo stupid! we're gonna hammer them at the polls fer this! this is HUGH!11!111"

[Laelth]

27. I think you're right.

This is a wedge issue, and it's always the wedge issues that kill us. Most Americans agree with us on the wedge issues (all of them), and so, by nature, we take the reasonable position. But this is an emotional issue, and the reasonable position is a loser at the polls. Don't know what we can/should do with this, but as one who has studied the law, my experience has been that legislators usually make an awful mess when the abrogate the common law (i.e. when they take a long-standing common law duty like the duty to escape/retreat and abolish it).

-Laelth

[Sheri]

28. True.

If the Repukes didn't control the media, we could just ignore their stupid wedge proposals, but given their control, we have to speak out and that a position. Our choices are 1) to be silent and look wimpy or 2) take the sane but losing position or 3) seel out our values and support Repuke insanity. I don't like these choices.

[Laelth]

36. You make a good point.

A poster in the above-referenced thread says this:

You do realize that if it was not for the anti-gun liberals, a republican would never get elected again don't you?

What's sad is that the common law duty to retreat isn't anti-gun. It's anti-vigilante. Yet those of us who defend the common law are likely to be painted as anti-gun and suffer at the polls as a result. Under those circumstances, your option #1 almost seems to be the better of 3 very bad options.

-Laelth

[Sheri]

37. I go back and forth on this.

I am willing to just "give up" on gun control. I am for gun control, but I know it's a loser at the polls and it hurts Democrats to support gun control. But this Kentucky law isn't a gun control measure. It's not like we're talking about restricting access to guns. It's a question of how and in what circumstances one can use a gun and how we define "self-defense." I don't like the idea of expanding the definition of self-defense to include situations in which the victim could have gotten away but, instead, decided to pull out a gun and use it. I don't think that makes for a healthy society, saying that it's OK to shoot instead of running away.

But we're still gonna get hammered at the polls for this. Maybe we should just go along with the Repukes here.

[A Simple Game]

21. A person can get hurt falling six feet.

Let's hope the driver has his seat belt fastened and the car has an air bag. Hey, it didn't say (perhaps someone you DO like).

Just kidding, of course I would push button #1. Did I mention I am Dyslexic?

[rucky]

25. This is why I don't do polls anymore.

You can ask a perfecly phrased question, and make a perfectly clear point - like you did - and all you'll get is a bunch of people telling you why they can't/won't vote. It makes you want to press button #1.

[Laelth]

26. Hehe ... thanks for the kind words.

I admit to a slight desire to push button #1 in response to some of these questions. :dilemma:

-Laelth

[petronius]

32. I'm going with Button #1

If this person driving the car is intending to hit me (he must be, if he keeps driving at me when I'm strapped to a chair in the road), then I don't want to give him a chance to come back and drop a brick on me when I'm strapped in my chair at the bottom of the hole...

[Laelth]

33. Who gets to assess the death penalty?

The intended (but unharmed) victim or the jury?

And that's the question, here, in part. We don't trust the police, generally, to protect us in the future from people who may harm us. As such, there are some who are willing to give an intended victim the right to assess the death penalty even when the intended victim could have easily escaped.

It's understandable. I'm just not willing to go there, personally.

-Laelth

[LSK]

51. you are assuming things that might not be true

It could be dark out, the person might not see you in time. Maybe its raining. Maybe the person is finding a station on the radio. Maybe you are in a blind curve. Yet you take a course of action that will for sure do harm to this person without awaiting an explanation. That is not acceptable.

[petronius]

54. The OP makes no mention of rain or curves or radios,

so it makes more sense to me to assume that these things would be mentioned if they were relevant, than to assume as you suggest that they might apply. As the situation is described, a car is bearing down and "is going to" hit me - that "is going to" tells me that the drivers awareness of me is irrelevant, if the car will hit me even if the driver sees me that implies that the driver has a conscious desire to run me down. If they want to run me down they probably also want to drop a rock on me when I'm trapped in a hole, and the only logical course available to me is to remove this persons ability to threaten me any further. You say it is not acceptable for me to do this without getting an explanation; in fact there is no possible explanation for the drivers action other than a desire to harm me.

Now, if the OP had set the situation up differently - perhaps if Button #2 had activated a fail-proof Star Trek teleporter that would beam me out of the chair and to a place of indisputable safety - then Button #2 would be a valid choice...

[seabeyond]

34. more interesting because i misread. dont know which button

will take down the driver or keep you safe. do you push a button.......if you dont know if you will hit the button for your safety or harm to another

knowing which button does what is easy. i dont desire to hurt anyone ever. safe enough to push two. but.... if i dont know which button, am i willing to take another life to protect my own. maybe an innocent. much harder to answer

[Sheri]

35. That is an interesting problem.

:shrug:

n/t

[Laelth]

38. Kind of defeats the purpose of the ...

thought experiment, though. :(

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth-smiley error.

[Sheri]

39. Yeah

but it's still interesting. ;)

[AllegroRondo]

40. Wow, reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode

A woman gets a visitor at home, bearing a small box with a red button. The visitor explains that she has 24 hours to decide to push the button or not. If she pushes it, she gets $10,000, and someone will die, "someone she doesnt even know."

She's in debt and could really use the money, and spends the next 24 hours wrestling with the idea of money vs life. In the end, she decides to push the button.

The visitor returns, gives her the money, and retrieves the box. The woman asks what will happen to the box. The visitor says it will be given to someone else, "someone you don't even know."

[Laelth]

41. Never saw that one.

I think the dollar figure would have to go up today to around a million dollars to have the same effect. Need to see that one anyway.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

42. Kick.

:kick:

-Laelth

[Orsino]

43. "Knowing without a doubt" is impossible for...

...the schmuck strapped into the chair. No matter what he's been told or even shown abut the functions of the buttons or about the occupant of the vehicle, it's just not possible to know that these things are constants. Indeed, the highly artificial nature of the problem is reason itself to suspect that all is not what it seems to be.

[Laelth]

44. It's a legal question.

I share your concerns about uncertainty. But the law is written in black and white. It lets the juries figure out the uncertainties. But IF a jury finds that a person could have safely escaped (and should have known that he could safely escape), then is it criminal or not to use deadly force in self-defense.

That's why this is so arbitrary. I have set it up such that the intended victim knows he or she can safely escape. When that is the case, I ask, can the intended victim use deadly force (Button #1) or must the intended victim escape (Button #2).

Nothing sinister going on here, really. ;)

-Laelth

[Orsino]

45. Never going to be a legal question.

The situation as described cannot arise.

[rpgamerd00d]

48. Press Button one while exclaiming loudly "Oops, wrong button! Damn!"

Am I a bad person ?

[Laelth]

52. Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Under the common law, it's a crime to push button #1. Laws in a number of states (Florida, for example) are making it not a crime to push button #1. I'm trying to see what DU Democrats think about this change in the law.

What's your opinion?

-Laelth

[benEzra]

53. I voted #2, and I strongly support the Florida law...

your analogy would be closer to the issue if button 1 had an 80% chance of working, button 2 had a 20% chance of working, button 2 prevented you from pressing button 1, and the person driving the car was deliberately trying to maim or kill you. In that scenario, I'd push button 1.

[Dolomite]

55. If the person in the car isn't stopping for you, he/she won't stop for

anybody.

Hitting Button #2 could make you responsible for the death of another.

People - did we learn nothing from watching the first Spiderman movie?