Legal question...self defense?

Question

I'm writing a novel and wondering: if you shoot and kill someone, how do they decide whether you acted in self defense or if it was premeditated? Thanks

Answer 1

I'm answering this from the viewpoint of a 30-year veteran peace officer. Here goes...

Most of the time, the question as to whether or not the use of force is justified boils down to this: "Would a reasonable person, examining the facts as they are known, have acted in the same way?" Generally, a person is entitled to use whatever force is necessary to overome the threat, and no more. Soooo....if someone is confronting you with deadly force, you may use whatever force is necessary to overcome that threat.

Let's examine a couple of examples:

1) As you pass by the entry to a dark alley, a large man steps out about 10 feet in front of you and produces a baseball bat, ****** over his head like he is ready to strike you. He begins to advance on you. He is twice your size and threatens to crack your skull unless you give him your wallet. Rather than reaching for your wallet, you reach for your Charter Arms Bulldog .44 Special in your overcoat pocket and fire twice, killing the assailant. I, and most other cops, would view this as justifiable homicide; the threat was real and credible, and the response was reasonable.

2) As you leave a bar one night, an obnoxious sort of hooligan pushes you down into a large mud puddle. He stands over you and laughs, then spits on you. He turns and begins to walk away. You pull out the same Bulldog .44, call out to him, and, as he turns to look back, you put two in his X Ring, killing him. The whole episode takes about 5 seconds. In this scenario, you'd be on your way to jail, probably for Second Degree Murder. The oaf who pushed you no longer presented a credible threat as you began to walk away, and calling out to him to get him to turn around would show your premeditation to kill him. Premeditation doesn't necessarily mean you thought long and hard about killing someone, only that you had enough time to develop a concious thought that you wanted to kill the person and then did it...so, premeditation can cover a span of years, or only a second or two.

The big question that has to be decided is: "Did he/she act reasonably?" In the first example, yes; in the second example, no.

Answer 2

Basically self defense requires several things (with the exact test depending upon the jurisdiction).

First, the other person started the confrontation.

Second, because of the actions of the other person, you thought that you were in danger.

Third, the amount of force was appropriate and reasonable given the situation. Typically, this means that to use force likely to kill the other person, you must have thought that you were in danger of being seriously injured or killed yourself.

Premeditation (or deliberation) typically requires some (but not much) advance planning. When a defendant set up the situation to allow the circumstances to appear to be a case of self-defense, that type of evidence would be fatal to a claim of self-defense.

Answer 3

Common sense girl, common sense.

If you aren't clear on that important plot point, maybe it isn't the right plot for you to write about yet.

After all, it has been beaten to death (no pun intended) in every news paper and fictional and nonfictional books and tv show and movies for the last 100 years or so.

Tehre are literall millions of examples for you to research and learn from. Try your library or bookstore under "true crime" as a good cheap way to start. Or ask at Blockbuster if the clerks can recommend a bunch of dvds with similar plots.

Answer 4

Don't follow the "common sense, girl, common sense" rule. Common sense and the law do not go hand-in-hand.

Self defense is an "affirmative defense" to conviction of a crime such as murder. An "affirmative defense" is a . . . justification -- so to speak. It's like the court saying, "Yeah -- you shot the guy . . . but, we're not going to put you in jail because . . . ."

Typically, to use the affirmative defense of self defense you have to be in imminent danger . . . not to just perceive that there is danger -- but to actually be in danger. Killing a man who has a gun isn't self defense unless he's facing you, pointing the gun at you, and threatening to shoot you -- and you believe, at the time -- that the gun is loaded, he has aim sufficient to injure your likelihood of surviving, and that he would actually do it.