Thursday, November 12, 2009

How far does the definition of "self-defense" go until its considered murder?

Read in the paper that a girl tried to kill and rape a girl. When the girl started screaming, the boyfriend came in and killed the guy who tried to kill the girl. Apparently he shot him and then slit his throat? The guy who killed the rapist was charged with murder and the girl was charged with assisting the crime. How far does self defense go in this case?|||Well the answer to this question is simple, but complicated to explain, and somewhat difficult to understand.

People have the right to use force, up to and including deadly force, to STOP someone from injuring or killing someone.

In other words, if someone is trying to injure or kill someone, you are only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to STOP the attack, and NO More. The ONLY time deadly force is allowed is when deadly force is the ONLY thing that will STOP it.

A reasonable person can safely assume, even without hearing the totality of the circumstances, that the boyfriend shooting the rapist was enough to stop the attack on the girl. In that case, since he was able to stop the attack by shooting him, he had no further need to stop him, therefore slitting his throat was unnecessary and constitutes murder (non-premeditated).

Additionally, there could be some question as to whether shooting him was even necessary to stop him. If it can be argued that he could have done anything else other than shooting him to stop the attack, then, as a matter of law, even shooting him was criminal. Again, you%26#039;re only allowed to use that force that is NECESSARY to STOP the injury or death of someone. Shooting him and then slitting his throat constituting murder in this case will hang on whether or not the boyfriend reasonably believed that he had no other option, and NOT whether he reasonably believed he had the right. Mistake of the law and/or personal opinon is not an affirmative defense.|||Maybe slitting his throat went beyond the bounds of self-defense cases. I would think getting shot would have been a sufficient deterrent to ward off the rapist. It%26#039;s up to the jury now. I%26#039;d have to hear all the facts from all sides before giving a better answer.|||Depends on the state. Here in Florida last year they passed a new law, if you feel threatened or feel someone else is threatened you can kill the assailant and not have to worry about facing charges, period. A very good law, I think|||It%26#039;s called reasonable force the boyfriend kind of went over board. Punching the skinhound out would have been suffice. He went way overboard. After the reasonable force he no longer was protecting his girlfriend, however if indeed if it was rape I probably would have hurt him quite badly maybe even enough to kill but i wouldn%26#039;t have shot him and slit his throat. What this really sounds like was this was a set-up. Why would her boyfriend be carrying a firearm and a knife? Almost sounds like this was premeditated from the start boyfriends don%26#039;t carry firearms and knifes without some sort of reason.|||Only as far as your money lasts in the hands of a crooked lawyer.|||first of all to prove self defense you have to prove that they were doing somehing to harm the rapist did...and then it to get a jury to believe it the over kill doesnt help make the case... personally i dont think that they should get tried but it is up to the D.A in that state. if you want more then get the book of the laws for your state|||he used excessive force- he both cut the throat and shot him.

I don%26#039;t know why the girl was charged

No comments:

Post a Comment