The Volokh Conspiracy - When Someone Half Your Age Starts Punching and Kicking You for No Reason,

until you fall to the ground, definitely don't fight back with lethal force. After all, maybe he's insane, and quite possibly not morally responsible for his actions. You wouldn't want to kill someone like that. And maybe he'll stop short of killing you or seriously injuring you while you're lying there on the ground, right?

That wouldn't be my thinking, but that seems to be what one item published by the Seattle Times suggests. First, some background:

According to Seattle police, a woman called 911 at 11:08 a.m. Saturday to report that a man [Danny Culotti] was acting erratically, yelling at passers-by and randomly assaulting strangers near Boren Avenue and Pine Street. Officers sent to the scene couldn't find the caller, the man or any victims, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said.

Twenty-three minutes later, police dispatchers radioed that shots had been fired at Fifth Avenue and Pine Street, she said. Moments earlier, witnesses told police, a man in his 20s apparently attacked the 52-year-old man, punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk. The older man pulled out a .357-caliber Ruger revolver [which he was licensed to carry] and fired one round, striking the man in the abdomen.

The older man "was not winning the fight" — the other man "just starts attacking him, he's on the ground and a shot is fired," Brown said, describing witnesses' accounts.

Ms. Brown also said that the man told the victim "I am going to kill you" before he started the attack.

Culotti, it turns out, had been mentally ill for years; in 2001, he burnt down his mother's house — having "doused the floors inside the house with gasoline." The mother was running a day-care center from the house, though fortunately "Culotti's mother, several child-care providers and seven children escaped unharmed." He was sentenced to less than two years in prison, and was released after nine months, having been labeled a Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender under state law. He had also "failed two drug tests shortly after his release from prison in October 2002", and "told his probation officer he had used crack cocaine regularly 'to help ease the stress.'" Culotti's victim, of course, had no way of knowing this, though I'm sure he wouldn't have been surprised by Culotti's past history. Now mental illness is of course a tragedy, and if indeed the illness was so severe as to render Culotti not morally culpable for his acts, Culotti's death would be a tragedy, too. (Different people draw the line for moral culpability at different places, but surely there are some mental illnesses that are so severe that they negate a person's moral culpability — for instance, if someone is operating under a sincerely felt insane delusion that it is the victim who is attacking him.)

Yet tragic as the situation may be, surely the one person that should not be blamed is the victim of Culotti's attack; yet that's exactly what an item published as "The Reader's View," and written by Culotti's uncle, a professor of molecular and medical genetics, says:

Witnesses say Danny's attack appeared random, but it was Danny who was shot dead. Initial reports painted Danny as a dangerous person who deserved it and the shooter as the victim.

Put aside the fact that Danny was a beautiful, intelligent child who became schizophrenic at age 18 through no fault of his own; then ask how you would respond to someone attacking you with his fists.

Most normal people would respond by instinctively running or using their hands to defend themselves.

However, the shooter was not what we would think of as normal — he was carrying a gun and his immediate instinct was to shoot his attacker.

Many "normal" people are capable of killing another person in a brief moment of extreme anger, but this is uncommon because most of us do not carry lethal weapons and our bodies are not killing machines — a .357-caliber Magnum is.

Schizophrenia, amazingly, affects one of a hundred people. Its major symptom is hearing voices, often telling the person to perform abnormal acts. Its cause is not understood, but it can strike anyone and is one of the worst scourges of modern society.

There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness.

I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun.

Danny won't be here to rejoice in a cure for schizophrenia, which we all hope will one day be found. May Danny rest in peace.

What a "misguided" and non-"normal" 52-year-old that was: A 25-year-old jumps him for no reason, punching and kicking until he falls to the ground, and he "misguided[ly]" and "[ab]normal[ly]" concluded that he was legally and morally entitled to defend himself rather than "using [his] hands to defend [himself]" or "instinctively running" while lying on the ground. After all, though "[t]here is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day," "he did have a diagnosed mental illness." How dare the 52-year-old conclude that protecting his own life justified killing this potentially mentally ill attacker?

I sympathize with Dr. Culotti's grief, and I can understand why the grief would lead him to focus on the death of his beloved nephew to the exclusion of his nephew's potentially lethal attack on a stranger. Yet I hope that the editors who chose to publish the article, and the readers who read the article, aren't confusing this grief with moral insight. Maybe that makes me abnormal and misguided, but there it is. Doubtless it's a moral illness on my part, to those who share Dr. Culotti's perspective.

By the way, I acknowledge that I'm relying here on newspaper reports, which may well be quite flawed. But I've looked at several reports, which seem consistent; and nothing in Dr. Culotti's item states that any of the reports are mistaken. Thanks to Clayton Cramer for the pointer.

	[Eugene Volokh, October 31, 2006 at 4:20pm] Trackbacks When Someone Half Your Age Starts Punching and Kicking You for No Reason, until you fall to the ground, definitely don't fight back with lethal force. After all, maybe he's insane, and quite possibly not morally responsible for his actions. You wouldn't want to kill someone like that. And maybe he'll stop short of killing you or seriously injuring you while you're lying there on the ground, right? That wouldn't be my thinking, but that seems to be what one item published by the Seattle Times suggests. First, some background: According to Seattle police, a woman called 911 at 11:08 a.m. Saturday to report that a man [Danny Culotti] was acting erratically, yelling at passers-by and randomly assaulting strangers near Boren Avenue and Pine Street. Officers sent to the scene couldn't find the caller, the man or any victims, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said. Twenty-three minutes later, police dispatchers radioed that shots had been fired at Fifth Avenue and Pine Street, she said. Moments earlier, witnesses told police, a man in his 20s apparently attacked the 52-year-old man, punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk. The older man pulled out a .357-caliber Ruger revolver [which he was licensed to carry] and fired one round, striking the man in the abdomen. The older man "was not winning the fight" — the other man "just starts attacking him, he's on the ground and a shot is fired," Brown said, describing witnesses' accounts. Ms. Brown also said that the man told the victim "I am going to kill you" before he started the attack. Culotti, it turns out, had been mentally ill for years; in 2001, he burnt down his mother's house — having "doused the floors inside the house with gasoline." The mother was running a day-care center from the house, though fortunately "Culotti's mother, several child-care providers and seven children escaped unharmed." He was sentenced to less than two years in prison, and was released after nine months, having been labeled a Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender under state law. He had also "failed two drug tests shortly after his release from prison in October 2002", and "told his probation officer he had used crack cocaine regularly 'to help ease the stress.'" Culotti's victim, of course, had no way of knowing this, though I'm sure he wouldn't have been surprised by Culotti's past history. Now mental illness is of course a tragedy, and if indeed the illness was so severe as to render Culotti not morally culpable for his acts, Culotti's death would be a tragedy, too. (Different people draw the line for moral culpability at different places, but surely there are some mental illnesses that are so severe that they negate a person's moral culpability — for instance, if someone is operating under a sincerely felt insane delusion that it is the victim who is attacking him.) Yet tragic as the situation may be, surely the one person that should not be blamed is the victim of Culotti's attack; yet that's exactly what an item published as "The Reader's View," and written by Culotti's uncle, a professor of molecular and medical genetics, says: Witnesses say Danny's attack appeared random, but it was Danny who was shot dead. Initial reports painted Danny as a dangerous person who deserved it and the shooter as the victim. Put aside the fact that Danny was a beautiful, intelligent child who became schizophrenic at age 18 through no fault of his own; then ask how you would respond to someone attacking you with his fists. Most normal people would respond by instinctively running or using their hands to defend themselves. However, the shooter was not what we would think of as normal — he was carrying a gun and his immediate instinct was to shoot his attacker. Many "normal" people are capable of killing another person in a brief moment of extreme anger, but this is uncommon because most of us do not carry lethal weapons and our bodies are not killing machines — a .357-caliber Magnum is. Schizophrenia, amazingly, affects one of a hundred people. Its major symptom is hearing voices, often telling the person to perform abnormal acts. Its cause is not understood, but it can strike anyone and is one of the worst scourges of modern society. There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness. I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun. Danny won't be here to rejoice in a cure for schizophrenia, which we all hope will one day be found. May Danny rest in peace. What a "misguided" and non-"normal" 52-year-old that was: A 25-year-old jumps him for no reason, punching and kicking until he falls to the ground, and he "misguided[ly]" and "[ab]normal[ly]" concluded that he was legally and morally entitled to defend himself rather than "using [his] hands to defend [himself]" or "instinctively running" while lying on the ground. After all, though "[t]here is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day," "he did have a diagnosed mental illness." How dare the 52-year-old conclude that protecting his own life justified killing this potentially mentally ill attacker? I sympathize with Dr. Culotti's grief, and I can understand why the grief would lead him to focus on the death of his beloved nephew to the exclusion of his nephew's potentially lethal attack on a stranger. Yet I hope that the editors who chose to publish the article, and the readers who read the article, aren't confusing this grief with moral insight. Maybe that makes me abnormal and misguided, but there it is. Doubtless it's a moral illness on my part, to those who share Dr. Culotti's perspective. By the way, I acknowledge that I'm relying here on newspaper reports, which may well be quite flawed. But I've looked at several reports, which seem consistent; and nothing in Dr. Culotti's item states that any of the reports are mistaken. Thanks to Clayton Cramer for the pointer.