Suppose person "A" has put themselves into a situation where person "B" is going to give them no choice but to kill them in order to save "A"'s own life. Suppose "A" know about this condition in advance, but entered into the situation anyway. "B" would not otherwise be harming "A" or any of "A"'s family, property, etc... but would definitely try to kill "A" once the situation was initated. Assume the situation itself is not an illegal action on either person's part.
The situation occurs, and "A" ends up successfully killing "B" as once the situation began, there was absolutely no other way for "A" to survive, and "A" knew this would be the eventual outcome.
In various jurisdictions, would this be more likely to be treated as self-defense, pre-meditated murder or some quasi-hybrid of the two?
2007-11-30 15:32:39 · 11 answers · asked by uncleclover 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This would probably be seen as self defense. With that being said some states require that an individual must retreat (if the possibility exists) before meeting deadly force. Other states allow you told hold your ground and meet deadly force without retreating.
An close example of your example could be with battered women. A famous case was People v Norman. She was convicted of killing her husband because she shot him while sleeping. If the facts were changed and he was awake she would have probably gotten away with killing him even though he was not currently threatening her.
Generally to be self defense the killing has to be
Necessary
An unlawful and imminent threat given
The force used must be proportional to force being meet
A reasonable person would react that way
I hope this helps but without a little more specific info that is the best I can give. I kinda threw a lot on the wall and hope something sticks for you
2007-11-30 16:05:52 · answer #1 · answered by dennis_evans2003 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In many jurisdiction - if party A knows the events that is going to be occuring after taking such actions, it would be considered a premeditated murder and the victim would be party B.
This is because
1) Party A knows about the plan, he could have avoided it - does not constitute as self defense
2) Party B is the one that will be harm through the actions of A
3) Party A also wants to kill Party B --> Murder!!!
However, depending on the Jurisdiction it could be Murder 1 or 2 etc...
I am pretty sure it is murder unless the defence can come up with some arguement of self-defense that is plausible and found believable by the judge and jury
2007-11-30 23:54:39 · answer #2 · answered by aloofnerd 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Devil is always in the details. Your question is too broad to be answered. If A is in fear of his life, then homicide is justifiable. If he's just getting his *** kicked, it is not. It could never be premeditated as it depends on the actions of B (B has to break the law by threatening A). Goading someone into a situation where you have to use lethal force to defend yourself is not premeditated murder. B is responsible for his own actions.
EDIT: Goading someone into violence for the purpose of killing them could be a lesser crime of murder, or manslaughter, but it's not 1st degree murder. It can still be a crime, but it's not automatically one thing or another.
2007-11-30 23:43:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be treated as murder in ALL jurisdictions. It is up to the jury to decide whether it is actually self defense, and usually the answer is NO because the person took a "substantial step."
2007-11-30 23:42:48 · answer #4 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A knew a head of time. All A had to do is not put themselves there. so it is not self defense . A wanted to kill B that's why A put themselves in that situation. premeditated murder
2007-11-30 23:41:30 · answer #5 · answered by snow 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since "A" initiated the confrontation "A" is a premeditated murderer.
One situation your scenario fits is "A" committing a home invasion against "B" and knowing that "B" is armed, then shooting "B" when "B" goes for his gun.
edit
In your scenario "A" initiated the confrontation deliberately, knowingly provoking "B" to take action, so yes it would be premeditate, or 1st degree, murder.
2007-11-30 23:43:49 · answer #6 · answered by Gray Wanderer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Generally "creation of the peril" will negate a self defense charge.
An easy example would be if you were beating someone badly and then the sprung from the ground and attempted to attack you with a knife, and you shot them. This would not be a justifiable homicide because you were the aggressor, and because they were respond legally to your illegal initiation of an encounter.
2007-11-30 23:46:27 · answer #7 · answered by Damien T 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say any DA would definitely have to proceed with murder charges, but would probably work towards murder in the 3rd degree since the defendant's conduct showed reckless indifference toward human life.
Btw, too much Law & Order makes for dangerous speculation :)
2007-11-30 23:54:11 · answer #8 · answered by jandarlt 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the burden of proof would be on the part of the DA's office to prove that "A" and knowledge and I think that would be a very difficult proposition. I think that unless there was a confession made by "A", the authorities would view this as self-defense.
2007-11-30 23:41:00 · answer #9 · answered by ≤ Flattery Operated © 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
self defense
2007-11-30 23:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋