Self-Defense and Justifiable Homicide

[Claire Diviner]

Self-defense, self-preservation and survival is an innate instinct in every sentient creature, and human beings are by no means any different. People will often do what is necessary to survive, even if it means ensuring that their fellow human antagonist's survival is denied. So how far is truly too far in the case of self-defense? I will present three examples of self-defense; one which was non-lethal, one that was lethal, and another one that was lethal, but have some people saying it went too far.

For the first example, this act of self-defense was non-lethal. Some of you may have already heard of/read about this story of an armed man being beaten and bloodied by his would-be victim; a professional cage fighter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070480/Mugger-Anthony-Miranda-picks-wrong-victim-taking-ultimate-fighter--losing.html

Few people say the fighter known as Justin, went overboard with beating the mugger. However, the mugger's life wasn't taken and was ultimately sent to prison by the proper authorities. Had he not defended himself the way he did, he could have potentially lost more than just his money, as some robbers are known to execute their victims, even after said victim(s) complies to their demands.

The second example is of a man shooting down an outlaw in what is argued to be justifiable self-defense:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/aug/24/082409websudderth/

In this example, the defender in question had been harassed for a long time prior to the incident, and according to details, the antagonist in question appeared to have reached for a weapon, prompting the defendant to open fire on the assailant. In this case, his life was potentially in danger, and while his method of self-defense was lethal, he lived to see another day.

The third example is of a man shooting two people (teenagers in this case) in his home after they broke into his house. Many argue this went way too far, and for most of those, it wasn't because the the age of the teens, but because of the nature in the self-defense:

http://www.khq.com/story/20189518/minn-man-kills-two-teenagers-following-break-in

That said, the man in question has been convicted, despite defending his home from a break-in. Some will argue he had the right to do what he did, as he was defending his home and potentially his safety, while others say what he did went way beyond that point. The first shot subdued the teens, but then he intentionally finished the job by shooting them both in the head as they lay in pain on the ground. Furthermore, the shooting took place on a Thursday, but wasn't reported until the following day. It can also be assumed that the force used for self-defense in proportion to the trespassers was grossly one-sided, though no details on any supposed weapons on the victims were given.

Justifiable homicide in self-defense in the United States is described in the following:

A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as ****, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would largely not be considered justifiable.

In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. In the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[1] New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat in certain situations (depending on the state, this may apply to one's home, business, or vehicle, or to any public place where a person is lawfully present). Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right. Justifiable homicide is a legal gray area, and there is no clear legal standard for a homicide to be considered justifiable. The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.

In the US Supreme court ruling of District of Columbia v Heller, the majority held that the constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".[2]

Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide:

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

The object of this thread is to debate whether homicide in self-defense is justifiable or not, and if so, can it go too far? How far can "too far" really be? The following links are to Wikipedia articles detailing the Second Amendment of the United States of America, Defense of Property, and self-defense in English law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law

 

[rvkevin]

I'm not really sure how much there is to disagree with here. Most people agree that self-defense is justifiable and that you can go too far. Anyway, this is a good blog that deals with self-defense and has a good explanation for what is and is not self-defense, which basically boils down to what is the legal difference between defending yourself and assaulting the other person. This is an exerpt:

I know of an incident where an attorney was dealing with a person who was extremely upset that he was being prosecuted for 'defending himself.' The attorney explained to the guy why he was being charged for assault.

The attorney told the defendant that he understood the other guy attacked him. He understood he knocked the other guy down in self-defense. It was when the defendant kicked the other guy while he was down that he'd crossed the line from defending himself. That was when he had become the aggressor. That is why he was being charged with assault.

In relation to your third example, the person was defending himself when he shot the burglars. However, the threat was eliminated when they were on the ground so he can no longer use the self-defense defense when he killed them. If they had died from the original shots, then he should have been found not-guilty. This is why you can't hit or shoot someone as they are running away from you or as they lay on the ground. If they don't pose a threat, even if they did a few seconds ago, then you can't use self-defense. This is another case of where someone 'kicked them while they were down.' The person was manning a store while two individuals attempted to rob it. He shot one in the head and chased the other away. He then walked back into the store, grabbed another gun and then proceeded to shoot the individual, now unconscious from being shot in the head, 5 times in the chest. If there is anytime you lose the right to self-defense, it's definitely when the 'attacker' is unconscious. He was ultimately found guilty to murder. Again, if the original shot killed the individual, he would have been not-guilty, but he proceeded to use force when there was no threat.

 

[Aesir]

Just playing devils advocate here.

Lets say you were a physically weak person. You're being attacked by a man not only who's much bigger than you, but also much much stronger. This man is unarmed simply beating on you with his fists, and getting way is not an option. You do however have a gun concealed. Obviously trying to get away won't work as he already as you. You take out the gun and shoot him. Would you consider this self defense?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Lets say you were a physically weak person. You're being attacked by a man not only who's much bigger than you, but also much much stronger. This man is unarmed simply beating on you with his fists, and getting way is not an option. You do however have a gun concealed. Obviously trying to get away won't work as he already as you. You take out the gun and shoot him. Would you consider this self defense?

In this case, the lethal force was justified, as the antagonist in question would clearly be capable of doing permanent or even mortal harm if he wasn't stopped. So as long as one's life is in genuine danger, self-defense in the form of lethal measures would be seen as justifiable homicide. There was a thread in the Pool Room's Current Events some months back that went over a case where a 15-year-old stabbed his bully to death and was acquitted of all charges. The link to the thread will be provided below and the article being in the OP:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=316486