Manslaughter or self defence?

Question

If a Quadraplegic wheelbound person is a victim of an attempted robbery in the street whist in his wheelchair and during the robbery smacks the robbers nose into his brain killing him. Would it be manslaughter or self defence?
Please justify your answers. Also if you were on the jury, what verdict would you give?

I should mention I am a tetraplegic and although am paralysed from the chest down with no finger movement I do have full bicep and 80% tricep function.
I know how to kill someone using the palm of my hand to smash the nose upwards into the brain to kill them.
But if a man was attempting to rob me, thinking that I couldn't stop him, might be tempted to do this. Seeing that I am less able to protect myself or run away I was wondering where I would stand with the Law if I was to do this. Considering that it would be the only defence I would have.

Answer 1

If you were being robbed, then you have the right to defend yourself regardless of whether you are able bodied or otherwise. The law states that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself. What is reasonable will be for the judge / jury to determine.

If you stated that you were aiming to smash someones nose into their brain, then personally I believe that this has gone beyond reasonable force. You may just find yourself convicted of manslaughter.

If you just hit them in the face whilst defending yourself and you happened to do that without intending to, then that would be different.

Any jury would be favourable dependant on whether the force was not over the top. I know that each person should be treated equally but I guess that a person in a wheelchair will be seen as more vulnerable and more likely to have the support of the jury. Also how you came accross to the jury in the trial is important.

Hope this helps

Answer 2

It depends entirely on circumstances. Was it intentional? Was the person attempting the robbery armed? If it was shown that the quadraplegic person had retained enough function and had the knowledge to kill someone with such a strike and the attacker was not armed and was not being agressive then it would not be self defense.

For example if I was quadraplegic but still could move my arms sufficiently and was the victim of a female pickpocket and I intentionally struck them with the lower palm of my hand into their nose then I doubt many people would accept that I was merely acting in self defense.

Answer 3

If I'm reading your verbage correctly...it's sounds like you are from the UK. If so...I'm not exactly up on all your laws...however...they don't vary from those in the US if at all.

With that in mind...to have "manslaughter" a person causes the death of another person under circumstances that would constitute murder except, that they cause the death due to a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation recognized by law, and before a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself.

The circumstances you state are not a "heat of passon" nor an "intentional" killing of another but merely self defense while in fear of bodily harm or death. When in fear of bodily harm or death...one may take the necessary actions to prevent such harm with equal force.

If the attempted robbery were conducted at gunpoint or a deadly weapon....I'd rule the event as self defense!

HOWEVER....Quadriplegia, also known as tetraplegia, is a symptom in which a human experiences paralysis affecting all four limbs, although not necessarily total paralysis or loss of function.

Nice try! lol

Answer 4

It would be manslaughter as the offender was a victim and acted in self defence. It could only be murder if the crime was premeditated. If I was on the jury I would probably find him guilty of manslughter on the grounds that he acted in self defence. However although it is wrong to take someone's life I would not think it was justice to sentence the person to a term in prison after all he did not mean to kill the man and he is no threat to anyone else.

Answer 5

It would be self defence. But knowing the state of laws in this country the Quadraplegic would end up going to prison for murder, whilst the robbers family would end up claiming compensation.

Answer 6

Obviously it's self defence. I feel that anything that happens to a person who is this middle of stealing from someone should be considered self defense on the latters part.

Stealing is the lowest of lows.

Answer 7

Self defense. Someone trying to rob a wheelchair bound person deserved what they got. The wheelchair bound person did all they could to stop them, and didn't necessarily mean to kill them. It's not like they could tackle the robber or something...

Answer 8

I would say it was in the act of self-defence.The robber was attacking this person,the victim tried to pull him off,accidently smaking his nose into his brain when it seemed like a punch in the nose,I would say the person on trial is innicent.

Answer 9

The wheelchair defendant has one question to answer that will some this up. Did defendant feel that his/her life was in danger and was just enough force acted upon to protect that life.

I believe self defense is in order.

Answer 10

Self defense as it is not pre-meditated and also as they were most vulnerable. Victim could claim it was a struggle and thus an accident.