CapnMac
Member
There is a word not much used in modern parlance, it is "maim." Which is to cause permanent, debilitating injury.
It's an old concept, and one that ought to have established law behind it.
If a person meant to chop off your hand, but not kill you with a machete, how should that be defended against? Or, closer to the point, if a person engaged in fisticuffs with an intent to win by gouging out your eye--but not kill you, what response is appropriate?
On the latter, eye-gouging used to be a common way to settle streetfights, ought to be plenty of precedents in trial law to cite.
The laser is just a newer, technological, means to the end. And one with far more stand-off than using a sap or blackjack.
As a guess, the threat of being maimed is sufficient justification. The problematic question is more about distance. Are you justified in taking a low margin 50m pistol shot to prevent maiming? Or a 100m carbine shot? You are at risk at those distances (presuming the guilty party is able to discriminate targets at those ranges--which they may well be--and how would you know).
In military service, under LOAC you can retaliate with all the reasonable resources to hand--war crimes are like that.
John Quincy Deaux does not have that luxury, but could be at that level of risk.
It's an old concept, and one that ought to have established law behind it.
If a person meant to chop off your hand, but not kill you with a machete, how should that be defended against? Or, closer to the point, if a person engaged in fisticuffs with an intent to win by gouging out your eye--but not kill you, what response is appropriate?
On the latter, eye-gouging used to be a common way to settle streetfights, ought to be plenty of precedents in trial law to cite.
The laser is just a newer, technological, means to the end. And one with far more stand-off than using a sap or blackjack.
As a guess, the threat of being maimed is sufficient justification. The problematic question is more about distance. Are you justified in taking a low margin 50m pistol shot to prevent maiming? Or a 100m carbine shot? You are at risk at those distances (presuming the guilty party is able to discriminate targets at those ranges--which they may well be--and how would you know).
In military service, under LOAC you can retaliate with all the reasonable resources to hand--war crimes are like that.
John Quincy Deaux does not have that luxury, but could be at that level of risk.