Edmund Joubranwasworking as clerk in a corner storewhen twomen entered, one pointed a gun at him, and demanded cash. Believing they might kill him, Joubran drew and fired his own 0.38-caliber pistol, killing one of the men. Police later discovered that the robber’s weapon was just a realistic toy gun.1 Though he was mistaken about whether defense was necessary, it seems that Joubran did exactly what rational, well-intentioned agents in situations epistemically like his should be expected and permitted to do: protect their lives from an immediate, unjust threat. Contrast Joubran with another mistaken defender. Anthony Simon had a bad relationship with his neighbor Steffen Wong, and one evening the two got into a verbal argument. Simon believed that Wong was a martial artist and a lethal threat even empty-handed. When Wong appeared angry, Simon feared he was about to attack and defensively shot Wong. In fact Wong posed no threat, and did not even know any martial arts—Simon only believed that he did because he was Asian.2 Intuitively, we should want legal principles for self-defense that count Joubran as having done nothing wrong, but hold Simon responsible for his unreasonable error. Unlike the robber, Wong can legitimately complain that his rights against harm have been violated.

中文翻译：

---

合理错误和监管规范：防御性伤害中的种族偏见

埃德蒙·朱布兰（Edmund Joubran）在一家街角商店当店员时，有两个人进来，有人用枪指着他，要现金。Joubran 相信他们可能会杀死他，于是拔出并发射了他自己的 0.38 口径手枪，杀死了其中一名男子。警方后来发现劫匪的武器只是一把逼真的玩具枪。 1 虽然他错误地认为是否有必要进行防御，但似乎 Joubran 在像他这样的情况下做了理性、善意的特工应该期待和允许的事情：保护他们的生命免受直接的、不公正的威胁。将 Joubran 与另一个错误的后卫进行对比。Anthony Simon 和他的邻居 Steffen Wong 关系不好，一天晚上，两人发生了口角。西蒙相信黄是一名武术家，即使是空手而归，也是一个致命的威胁。王某生气的时候，西蒙担心他即将进攻并防守性地射杀了Wong。事实上，Wong 并没有构成威胁，甚至连任何武术都不会——Simon 只相信他会，因为他是亚洲人。 2 直觉上，我们应该想要自卫的法律原则，认为 Joubran 没有做错任何事，但坚持西蒙对他的无理错误负责。与强盗不同，Wong 可以合法地抱怨他的免受伤害的权利受到侵犯。