So is it justifiable to say "curb stomp" someone after they just shot at you 6 times with a revolver and missed?
Yes.
even though they are out of ammo?
They attempted to kill you. I would consider that retribution is due and they owe you an incredible debt especially depending upon the specifics of the situation. I'm assuming here that it was an utterly unprovoked assault. So what if they have no more ammo? If someone tries to rape someone and then says "oh I'll never do it again" does it matter even if they are telling the truth? I would consider that it still implies that the individual in question should owe you something as recompense.
The particulars of what the guy does after he runs out of ammo matters too, but the answer is we can't say for sure based on what you said. Does curb stomp mean kill? If the shooter started fleeing and was chased down, that is on the spot justice. You have to evaluate each person's use of force separately. If you really want any chance of understanding the answer start by reading this from page 12.
There are always going to be matters which are arbitrary, hence the word arbitration. Block uses the heuristic device for the "premium for scaring" aspect of a revolver with 1,000 chambers, each filled proportionately with as many bullets as the risk posed by the initial aggressor. Did the initial victim do some crazy escape tactics against a trained marksmen from close range and escape, or was he mostly covered against an untrained, drunk shooter from 100 yards? This type of evidence and the technical knowledge of the case also guide the judge. Libertarian legal theory can't answer objectively how many "chambers" would be filled.
Say that, after the whole thing, a judge finds that A subjected B to a 66% chance of being killed. B is not right necessarily in exacting justice by killing or even beating A. We would, after the fact, "roll the dice" and if B gets the 1/3 chance the 1,000 chamber gun will not be loaded, he is open to punishment for murder. If A was just beaten, they could negotiate. Does A want to take a 2 in 3 chance he will die just to exact revenge for the beating he sustained, or might he agree to forgive B for curb stomping him? Maybe B feels that he can press his luck and ask for $10,000. Who knows what the two might arrange.
That is the technically correct answer but you also have to keep in mind that many judges could be unwilling to take any action against B, even if he murdered A.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
If I where an arbitrator and had such a case brought before me I’d say: “Lad, you could kill you attacker on the spot and be fine with it, but now you can no longer do so. Get over it. Just go in peace.” Of course, I find it difficult to see how the attacker would be able to get any insurance at all for anything.
I'm thinking that B shot at A 6 times and missed, and then gave up and surrendered. Then A puts the Gun flat to B's head and pulls the trigger. Is A guilty of murder?
So, we are dealing with a seven shooter huh? See why the particulars are important?
I know, with certainty that in that lacquered purse of yours nestled against powder case and mirror sleeps a black stone; seven deaths Vladimir Nabokov, in a poem to his fiancee, Vera Slonim
I know, with certainty that in that lacquered purse of yours nestled against powder case and mirror sleeps a black stone; seven deaths
Vladimir Nabokov, in a poem to his fiancee, Vera Slonim
I answered your question above really. B, the original shooter, did not commit murder, so killing him outright could be over-punishing. Do you like (American) football? It is sort of like offsetting penalties.
So the proper retribution would be putting B in the same situation as A, and letting A shoot at him 6 times?
A and B might not have the same level of reflexes, eyesight, training with firearms, etc. How would you even attempt to model the firing patterns or dodging patterns to make it an equal situation? Lacking such capabilities, we resort to jurors' arbitrary determination based on whatever facts are available.
As long as the initial victim of aggression can establish a prima facie case against the first shooter, the judgment must tend toward the initial victim and the burden of proof be on the one who set the whole course of events in motion.