George Zimmerman's attorneys won't use "stand your ground" defense

[TPaine7]

58. Wrong.

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Still, whether the majority of the additional homicides are justifiable or not is of secondary importance. Let's assume that SYG caused an increase in 300 justifiable homicides and 200 murders. That would still be bad -- it would mean 200 additional innocent lives lost.

That's like balancing the books while ignoring accounts receivable. As an intentionally over-the-top example, if you had taken out the top 1,000 nazis early in Hitler's career you would have increased the German homicide rate. And that would have been a bad thing using your analysis.

Your assumption that ending the criminal careers of 300 violent criminals saves no lives is not nearly as bad as ignoring the damage of the top 1,000 nazis. But is is just as illegitimate in principle.

Furthermore, you assume that the 200 other lives are innocent. That is a perfectly legitimate assumption in a court of law, but not in a cost benefit analysis. Surely some of the other claimed attacks actually happened, they just didn't justify a potentially lethal defense. And surely some of those homicides also stopped violent criminal careers.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not countenance unjustified potentially lethal defenses. But if you are going to do a cost/benefit analysis, you have to at least make a good-faith effort to calculate the benefits. All of them.