The law protects the [even] the lowest scum implies that the law protects everybody.
Heres an anecdote:
A while back in my town, Two gay men were in a bar and a third man began harassing them (faggot, etc). The two men left the bar, were followed out by the third; they got into thier van at which point the aggressor began punching the driver. It was established in court that the aggressor became caught up in the seatbelt, and the driver dragged him some distance causing serious injury.
The driver claimed he was afraid to stop as the aggressor had already attacked him. The court found him guilty of something (perhaps aggravated assault but I can't recall).
So what? The men were hasseled in the bar, they left the bar, they were attacked in the parking lot in thier own vehicle. The attacker ended up injured and the men who tried to aviod the confrontation are gulity. How has the law protected two men who went out of thier way to avoid the trouble? Rather the law has gone out of it's way to reward assault; Out of its way to punish self defense. It isn't the only story of this inanity I have and I'd bet a few of you reading this have a few stories too. A man kicks over your bike and you punch him in the nose...Who goes to jail? You. A man grabs your wife and demands her purse and you put a knife in his ribs... Who goes to jail? you.
Anybody remember Pulp Fiction? I'm a big fan of the 'motherf***er should'a f***ing known f***in' better' defense. It goes like this: So, you were punching a guy through his car window and then you got dragged halfway across town? Well what was your fist doing in his window in the first place? Or another one: A guy stabbed you with a big-a** kitchen knife? I guess if you hadn't been punching strangers on a bus that wouldn't have happened, huh? Or: You were mugging some folks and threatened the wife, but it turned out the man had a six-inch folder in his pocket and the balls to use it? I guess you should know better than to attacker strangers on the street, isn't that right?
Current mself defense law in the US (it varies state to state, but this is the jist)is: 'One can use (only) as much force as needed to remove the danger'. Also, you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Consider how this reasonable sounding statement plays out in a court; What amount of force was necesary? was stabbing him with a knife really necesary, or would punching him back have done the job? Maybe if you'd just given him your wallet in the first place the whole thing could have been avoided. He probably wouldn't have really hurt your wife, he was just posturing for that wallet...
it may sound a little I'm like splitting hairs to the law-minded, but lets recall the legal lesson of my first story; A man follows you out of a bar, and begins punching you through your car window as you attempt to leave the scene and he is not only not guilty of assaulting you, you are guilty of assaulting him when you drive away and he becomes entangled and is dragged. You are guilty because you didn't stop and help disentangle him from your seat belt. You are guilty of not looking out for the safety of a man who was just moments ago beating you.
Self-defense law has very little to do with justice and nothing whatsoever to do with protection.
