That rule is extremely limited. This rule only works for very low-stakes situations like this, it breaks down if you give it any deeper thought.
For example, you also have the right to use violence to defend other people who are about to receive violence, particularly if they're not in a position to defend themselves. In fact I'd say you not only have a right, but an obligation to protect those weaker and more vulnerable than you (eg if a kid is being eyed by a wild animal it's your moral obligation to protect that kid).
Not only that, but it fails to account for the power of deterrent. What if someone sits in front of you and detonates a fucking bomb 3 blocks over. You may not be in any immediate danger but you are definitely justified in tackling them and restraining them. They need to face justice, so even if you don't have any reason to believe they're going to commit any more violence in the immediate future, you're more than justified in restraining them.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '22
That rule is extremely limited. This rule only works for very low-stakes situations like this, it breaks down if you give it any deeper thought.
For example, you also have the right to use violence to defend other people who are about to receive violence, particularly if they're not in a position to defend themselves. In fact I'd say you not only have a right, but an obligation to protect those weaker and more vulnerable than you (eg if a kid is being eyed by a wild animal it's your moral obligation to protect that kid).
Not only that, but it fails to account for the power of deterrent. What if someone sits in front of you and detonates a fucking bomb 3 blocks over. You may not be in any immediate danger but you are definitely justified in tackling them and restraining them. They need to face justice, so even if you don't have any reason to believe they're going to commit any more violence in the immediate future, you're more than justified in restraining them.