The Moral Grounds of Reasonably Mistaken Self‐Defense

Bolinger, Renée Jorgensen

doi:10.1111/phpr.12705

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Falsenegative errors involve not using deadly force against suspects who are a future threat and inflict grave harm after their escape. 33 Neither the imminence requirement nor the prevailing status quo for police can avoid both errors entirely. The imminence requirement places a more stringent restriction on deadly force than the status quo and thus comes with greater risk of false-negative errors.…”

Section: Doctrine Of Doing and Allowingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police

Jones¹

2023

Criminal Justice Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere, the law governing deadly force by police and civilians contains a notable asymmetry. Often civilians but not police are bound by the imminence requirement-that is, a necessary condition for justifying deadly force is reasonable belief that oneself or another innocent person faces imminent threat of grave harm.In U.S. law enforcement, however, there has been some shift toward the imminence requirement, most evident in the use-of-force policy adopted by the Department of Justice in 2022. This article defends that shift and argues that the ethical case for the imminence requirement in policing is stronger than Shannon Brandt Ford suggests in a recent article. Though the imminence requirement's impacts on policing and public safety require ongoing study, the principle of equality before the law and the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing both provide moral grounds for this requirement, especially given the lack of evidence that the status quo helps protect life.

show abstract

Section: Doctrine Of Doing and Allowingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police

Jones¹

2023

Criminal Justice Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Privacy rights and ‘naked’ statistical evidence

Munch

2021

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Moral Significance of Privacy Dependencies

Munch,

Mainz

2023

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Often, when we share information about ourselves, we contribute to people learning personal things about others. This may happen because what we share about ourselves can be used to infer personal information about others. Such dependencies have become known as privacy dependencies in the literature. It is sometimes claimed that the scope of the right to privacy should be expanded in light of such dependencies. For example, some have argued that inferring information about others can violate their right to privacy. Others have argued that sharing personal information about yourself that license such inferences can by itself violate the right to privacy. In this paper, we argue that the latter view should be rejected.

show abstract

The Moral Grounds of Reasonably Mistaken Self‐Defense

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police

Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police

Privacy rights and ‘naked’ statistical evidence

The Moral Significance of Privacy Dependencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About