There are definitely pros and cons for individual(s) being able to have a concealed weapon but in this case I am for people being able to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals are less likely to target a person if they know that person is armed. Second I don’t feel the government can 100 guarantees the safety of all of its citizens. Third reason why is criminals are going to carry a concealed weapon legal or not. So why shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to do the same and be able to protect themselves.
So the defendant does not have to have the intention to commit an act or have any knowledge of the circumstances that makes an act a criminal offence. The second type of strict liability is a more common type, with this type of strict liability it is at least necessary for the defendant to have intended to commit the act, but the fact that the offence is one of strict liability means that the defendant need have no knowledge of the circumstances that make his act a criminal offence. An example which shows this is in the case of R V Prince (1875) within this case the defendant knew that the girl he took was in the possession of her father however he thought she was aged 18 and did not know that she was only 16. The result was that he was convicted because he had the intention to remove the girl from her father’s possession whether he assumed her age was 18 or something else. With this case we can clearly see that the mens rea was required for part of the actus reus and he had the necessary intentions.
Then the fact that they did not have a law saying that it was wrong for someone to commit suicide or the medical assistance of it. doctors are supposed to be here to provide care. I feel like no justice was served and that this could happen again to someone
Michael Walzer argues that there is an important moral difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism in his just war theory. The war convention prohibits combatants from intentionally killing civilians and imposing foreseeable harm on noncombatants that are disproportionate to a military end, thus the jus in bello criteria of proportionality and discrimination are crucial for assessing whether or not a military action is just and morally acceptable. Walzer argues that it is most preferable that civilians have a right that “due care” is taken by combatants to avoid imposing unnecessary and inappropriate risks of harm and death upon them.  This claim about civilian rights and noncombatant immunity works to impose restrictions and prohibitions on certain military tactics and strategies in an effort to prevent military and political leaders from weighing victory over concern for human rights to life and liberty. Walzer distinguishes between guerilla warfare and terrorism, arguing that the latter’s conduct is not justified according to the established rules of war.
It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to force him. The harm principle basically narrows down to the state having the power to coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others. I think this principle depends crucially on what we understand and agree on to what extent something or someone can be “harmful”. If any sort of negative effect on a person may be considered as harm, the Harm Principle will fail in protecting individual liberty. Mill claims it is not all things considered harmful but rather ones that are the most serious.
There are 4 guidelines in determining how the crime can be considered victimless. The first rule states that crimes with no material harm. Second includes the victim is damaging his or her own self by committing drug usage or attempted suicide. The next rule includes “an abstract society or group of people, without a clear, direct victim” which can include no having insurance while operating a motor vehicle. Lastly the fourth guideline includes “against non-"victims," or non-human entities, such as governments.
In the U.S. constitution the 5th amendment protects citizens from the abuse of government employees. The 14th amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving any person’s life, liberty, or property without taking the proper and certain steps to ensure fairness to that individual. A lot can go into answering the question: why did u use excessive force. The answers can be race of the cop and victim, situation, looks even the victims attitude towards the arresting officer etc… There are certain things you can do to fight back using your voice, the law and the courts. If you are
The Use of Torture Can Never Be Justified As a preliminary working definition sufficient for my purposes here, I agree with Michael Davis who describes torture as “the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, (Michael, Davis, 2005). Thus, a person might have been tortured, even if in fact their will has not been broken; the purpose of the practice of torture is to break the victim’s will, but this purpose does not have to be realized for a process to be an instance of torture. Is The Use of Torture Ever Justified? The question tends to provoke a "yes" or "no" answer. The use of torture is always based on the “TICKING bomb theory.” This theory describes a fictional scenario in which a massive weapon is set to go off, a prisoner in custody is known to have information on the attack that he refuses to give, and U.S. forces are faced with the question of whether to torture the prisoner or to allow untold millions to die.
Most departments do not allow warning shots, because they are dangerous and rarely have the effect of stopping behavior. The department’s policy is ambiguous and should be revised. Ambiguity in policy leads to officer misconduct and liability. Fourth, the pursuit should not have been allowed to continue. As previously stated, there is no clear indication of the commission of a criminal act.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.