Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 6 comments on “Necessity pg 15
  1. Eric says

    Actually, that scenario sounds an awful lot like self defense to me. Jack was going to kill Jill if she didn’t do something about it.

    • Exactly. Humans have a preservation instinct, and I think the law should protect that, no matter how innocent the person is.

    • Self-defense doesn’t apply because Jack didn’t do anything illegal. There’s no such thing as a self-defense claim against lawful behavior, even if it’s lawful behavior that threatens your safety.

      That said, this case probably wouldn’t be prosecuted (assuming there was a witness), if for no other reason than because a jury would very likely sympathize with her decision, and because the incident as told just intuitively seems far more like “tragic accident” than “murder”.

  2. WJS says

    It hardly seems fair, considering you’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t value their own lives and those of their family above strangers.

  3. JB says

    Isn’t this the same problem? Again you’re not weighing Jack against Jill, you are weighing Jack against both Jack and Jill.

Class Participation