----
In the real world, self defense is justifiable as long as it falls within the boundaries of
reasonable force. The way reasonable force is defined, at least Canada where Label, yourself and myself are from is as follows - taken from Criminal Code, section 34: "34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes, and
(b) he believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.".
Also, in many States within the U.S. there is also "Expanded self-defence" allowing, by law, for someone to protect another person from an attacker.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/Now given that you have no proof that Pooba didn't kill Davy out of self defense, you may only assert that he didn't, just as I am asserting that he did, however since the burden of proof falls to the one prosecuting Pooba (you), I'm going to keep going with the assumption that it was self defense, until proven otherwise
beyond reasonable doubt ("The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty"). So what do we know? Davy had attacked and killed both Pooba and Deadeye as reported by the victim, Deadeye. Given that Davy was a known repeat offender to both Deadeye and Pooba, I would assert that it's reasonable for Pooba to perceive an attack from Davy as an intention to cause not just grievous bodily harm, but death, as any reasonable person would. Also, given that it is common for people to survive multiple bayonet stabs and thus give them multiple opportunities to continue their assault, I would also assert that the only way he could
realistically preserve himself was to kill David. Some factors to consider.
1)The nature of the threat: a serial team killer and troll.
2)Were there other means available to respond to the potential use of force: No, there were evidently no admins on, or if there was, they were not doing their job.
3) the person’s role in the incident: We have no reason to believe Pooba antagonized this behavior, he has not been previously banned on the server and up until now has never been called into question as to whether or not he is a rule abiding player on the group fighting server.
4)The nature, duration and history of their relationship: To be honest, I'm not sure, they both appear to be in the same regiment, but as Blitzer and the Bushpirates showed the NW community, that doesn't mean a whole lot.
While I agree that Pooba broke rule 10 ("10. No teamwounding
purposefully.") as he did kill Davy
purposefully, he did not do it
maliciously, but rather out of
necessity, and while I realize that by that fact alone, some people think he should be punished, I would argue that to punish him would not be doing so in the name of justice, as he not only killed Davy in defense of himself, but also in defense of Deadeye, allowing for both of their experiences to be better and safer until Deadeye was able to report the offense to the mostly capable admin team. He should actually be commended instead of punished! Finally "It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary." - The lawyers' practitioner’s text. So by punishing Pooba for reasonably defending himself you
only demonstrate that the server and those chiefly associated lack both good law and good sense.
----
