Is there such a thing as premeditated Self-Defense


PDA






MagnumDweeb
April 18, 2008, 12:22 PM
This has been an idea bothering me for sometime now. I'm only 23 but I wonder about a lot quasi-philosophical ideas. My main cause for wonder stems from a conversation a cousin and I had. I'm a Central Florida born and raised southern boy and he's a Yankee(a former yankee turned southernner) transplant living in Miami. He's a business owner and carries a few guns on him at any given time while at work (a Rossi snubby .38 on the ankle, a Rossi snubby .38 in a pocket, and his 629 or 1911 in an inside waist band holseter). He's only once ever had to shoot someone closing up late at night where a robber forced one of his employees to the back at gunpoint and he shot him in the side of the head with his .38 while he was otherwise distracted.

But he also carries likewise when he's at 'home' which is a reputed less than safe part of town. He goes jogging in the evening and morning when he's at home (takes a Parahawg .45 and .38 snubby he tells me) and from what I've seen of the place those few times I've gone down to see him, it's not somwhere I would want to jog around at night. It also happens we are both fans of Charles Bronson (Magnificent Seven, Death Wish (all five movies, the third got a little hokey at the end), etc. etc.). I asked him flat out a couple of days ago during the AMC movie marathon if he thought he was being a Charles Bronson type. After some back-and-forth discussion it came down to self-defense and could it be premeditated. We both came to the conclusion it couldn't.

We thought it couldn't because we as law abidding citizens are endowed with the God given right to be free from the assaults and molestations of those who would break the law to do us harm. Now granted I certainly think that's a correct philosophical and logical stance but when the law comes into play, what is logical is not always right. I'm not talking about vigilantism because the work of crime stopping should be left to the professionals otherwise things could get right dangerous. My biggest concern would be some liberal Yankee southern occupier (Yankee who moves south but keeps touting how great the north is, yet they stay in the south) DA holding me up in court as some kind of vigilantee looking to victimise murderers( I throw muggers in there who use weapons capable of killing people) and rapists while they were in the commission of their heinous acts. I know that sounds ludicrous but after reading CHG and the 'Beating Rambo Rap' and another bit about how you have to argue hollow points in order to avoid the insane and baseless accusations of the prosecutor, I think it is quite possible. Plus as a law school student (the good kind) I've found a number of cases out of New York City, California, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois that are just plain absurd.

I bascially feel that the incorrect and baseless interpretations of our lesser patriotic brethren makes our rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and property, come at a premium or unjust restraint. What if I want to buy a cheap house in a high crime neighborhood and fix it up, what if I want to sit on my porch at night and videotape the dope dealers and send the tapes off to the cops and hope for some arrests and avoid embarrassing the cops by putting the tapes on youtube and sending them to the media? What if I want to be able to walk down the street with some pepper spray and one of my .44 Magnums and snubby .357s or .45 autos. Would I then be unjustly labeled a criminal when the dope dealer stepped onto my porch and threatened me with a knife or gun and as I genuinely feared for my life and I shot him? Would I then unjustly be labeled a criminal when some idiot with a gun trys to hold me up at gunpoint while I'm walking down the street and again genuinely fearing for my life I shoot him?

I realize we, the patriots, are starting to make the subtle march back to liberty and the American spirit, but there are some questions I think we need to ask and work to discover otherwise we risk loosing the ground we've gained. Those antis we can't win over, we must at least walk quietly around and otherwise work to lawfully ostracise their otherwise treachorous ideas and conduct.

And no not all northernners are yankees, my grandpa was an upstate New Yorker and plenty the country boy and patriot before he came south in the eighties. My roomate is a New Hampshire citizen and we find plenty in common with our beliefs of patriotizm and justice.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there such a thing as premeditated Self-Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
April 18, 2008, 12:54 PM
After some back-and-forth discussion it came down to self-defense and could it be premeditated. We both came to the conclusion it couldn't.

I've heard that argument before too, I agree that there's no such thing.

Is buying homeowners insurance premeditated arson if lightning hits your house? :)

jwr_747
April 18, 2008, 01:14 PM
if you "plan ahead" thats considered premeditated.if you CCW with the intent of defending yourself,it's a premediated act.if you are sitiuation aware,that is a premediated act.if you are attacked by a BG,throw your arms up to protect yourself,and by chance hit the BG in the nose,driving it into his brain,killing him,it is not premediated. jwr

Sato Ord
April 18, 2008, 01:20 PM
I have actually heard this term before. I've heard a couple of antis spout it when what they were actually talking about was "Lying in Wait".

Lying in Wait, or using things like guns set with trip wires is illegal in most places. It shows a degree of premeditation that president of law says is unacceptable. I, personally, am reserving judgment on this.

However, the antis I've heard using this would like to lump all people who use a firearm for defense into one neat ball and then throw that ball out of their nice neat fluffy-bunny world: they will use terms like this to "prove" their point.

In reality there is no such thing as premeditated self-defense. There is being prepared, and that is perfectly acceptable in my reality.

cambeul41
April 18, 2008, 01:22 PM
What do you mean by "premeditated"?

The definition that comes to my mind is, "Characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning."

By that definition, don't the majority of us here premeditate self-defense?

bnkrazy
April 18, 2008, 01:25 PM
According to Cooper's Color Code, once you're in condition orange or red, you're mindset should be "If that person does [life threatening action], I will do [defensive action].", for example, "If he comes any closer with that knife, I will shoot him."

I'd say that is premeditated. I'd also say that it is the legal (in most states) and moral thing to do. No one has the right to take your life, and if they threaten it you have the right to stop the threat.

Kind of Blued
April 18, 2008, 01:30 PM
Well, they way I see it "pre-meditated" implies, to a degree, that there is a 100% chance of "it" happening (whatever it may be).

When someone decides to commit a murder and begins planning the murder, they are theoretically 100% in control of whether that murder occurs or not.

"Pre-meditated self-defense" however, can't be proven to exist, as the act of self-defense hinges 100% on the actions and will of the attacker. The defendant is merely acknowledging that 100% of the attacker, doing some simple math, and finding that the number of violent crimes divided by the number of citizens is, in fact, more than zero. At this point, common sense says that you can play the odds, or take steps to insure that the odds don't play you.

i.e. Self-defense is conditional, and it's existence is not up to the defendant. The outcome of an attack however, is.

conw
April 18, 2008, 01:31 PM
It's premeditated by definition, as other posters have said.

Your debate really seems to be more about whether the same conditions apply to premeditated self-defense (vs non-premeditated self-defense if that's possible) as to premeditated crime (vs non-premeditated crime)...

By definition, self-defense is not a crime. Therefore, premeditation doesn't make it a crime. If you "premeditate" to the point that it becomes a crime, it isn't self-defense, even if you claim it is.

Like someone else said, "Lying in Wait" sounds more like what you're worried about: manipulating someone into a situation where they are provoked into allowing you to "defend" yourself...that, however, is not self-defense, and is premeditated.

gym
April 18, 2008, 01:33 PM
That is a tough one, because if you expand the thought, what if someone moves to a bad neighboorhood, so their odds go up as far as being involved in an altercation. Now if he lived their before he had a permit, it could be ruled as justified, but lets say a fairlly affluent person moves in to a ghetto, or violent neighborhood and he's a gun fanatic, like that kid from Homestead, only smarter with a military background, ('it's all hypothetical'), and he get's involved in some "Death wish", like activities, that may be a totally different scenario legally. It all depends on the attorney and weather someone sues him, or if the state has some recorse to file charges, although I have no idea what they would be. It's a very leading and subjective question, although a good mental exercise

jason10mm
April 18, 2008, 03:25 PM
The only way self defense could be "pre-meditated" was if you intentionally provoked an attack, then "defended" you way out of it. Of course that would actually be pre-meditated murder, unless you got away with it :P

Simply being PREPARED FOR or ANTICIPATING an event does not mean you pre-meditated it.

MiddleAgedKen
April 18, 2008, 03:36 PM
He's only once ever had to shoot someone closing up late at night where a robber forced one of his employees to the back at gunpoint and he shot him in the side of the head with his .38 while he was otherwise distracted.

One of those would be more than enough to suit me, thanks. Your man saved that employee's life, whatever else happened. Being moved to the back is just the precursor to your neighbors hearing you "were shot execution-style after a robbery."

He carries more tools than I probably would, but his reasons are none of my business.

Cosmoline
April 18, 2008, 03:38 PM
Sure you're planning ahead by carrying. You are planning ahead to do something LEGAL--defend yourself against imminent deadly force.

You folks are getting way too hung up on the notion of premeditation. It's a concept that applies to distingush between degrees of homicide. Lawful self defense defeats any claim of homicide. If you plot to make a homicide APPEAR TO BE self defense when it really wasn't, then you lose your defense because you weren't really in imminent harm of death. Not because you planned ahead.

The only way self defense could be "pre-meditated" was if you intentionally provoked an attack, then "defended" you way out of it.

The issue there has nothing to do with premeditation or planning ahead. If you provoke the attack by unlawfully assaulting the other guy first or unlawfully drawing on him first, then your state's self defense law may no longer deem your actions justified. Just walking around a bad neighborhood does not mean you have to accept getting killed by a mugger.

Phil DeGraves
April 18, 2008, 05:23 PM
"He carries more tools than I probably would, but his reasons are none of my business."

You don't want to lose a gunfight for lack of shooting back...

Sebastian the Ibis
April 18, 2008, 05:26 PM
"Pre-meditation" is tricky since it involves some sort of planning ahead, but there is no set rule as to how much.

If a crazy gunman started shooting up your school/office/post-office etc. and you went to your car for a weapon and returned and killed him. That would come pretty close to pre-meditated self defense.

"self" is an issue, but in this case you would be in danger just as much as the other victims so I think it would count.

Cosmoline
April 18, 2008, 06:44 PM
That would come pretty close to pre-meditated self defense.


So what? Do you folks think there's a law against planning ahead for lawful self defense? In the case of the school shooting, you'd be going to lawfully defend others and most likely yourself as well. Maybe not the brightest idea, but not homicide. It would only be illegal homicide if you waited until he was no longer a threat and THEN killed him in retribution. But that applies whether you planned it ahead or not.

Honu
April 18, 2008, 07:35 PM
not the same thing as premeditation but if you went into a bad area you know you would not go normally but if armed you chose to !
then a prosecutor might have more chance you planned and wanted to get into a altercation than if you were not armed

this is why also I think if you carry think about it and where you go !!!

if I know a area is bad I stay away when I carry I would not go into that area knowing I am armed now !
that may get you into trouble !

this is in theory remember :)

Josh Aston
April 18, 2008, 07:42 PM
Self defense is always based upon the action of the perpetrator. The crime is the action of the perpetrator. Self defense cannot be premeditated because it is a reaction. I can place myself in a situation where I am more likely to be involved in a self defense scenario, but my reactions are still dependent upon the actions of the criminal. If he/she chooses to respond to a lower level of force then lethal force will not be used and the criminal will live to see another day.

357WheelGun
April 18, 2008, 08:10 PM
The key here is realising the difference between the legal term, "pre-meditated", and the common usage of the same term.

In law, "pre-meditation" applies only to crime. That is to say that you cannot, as far as the legal system is concerned, "pre-meditate" anything that is not a crime. E.g. you cannot "pre-meditate" taking your family to Disneyland in June.

In everyday usage, the term "pre-meditation" can apply to any planning that takes place prior to an event, so in everyday usage, one can, and almost certainly always does, "pre-meditate" a family trip to Disneyland.

So the answer becomes more difficult. From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as "pre-meditated" self-defense for the simple reason that self-defense is not a crime and, in the legal world, "pre-meditation" applies only to crimes. To the average man on the street, however, the concept of "pre-meditation" is broader and can encompass non-criminal activities (such as my example of a family vacation to Disneyland).

makarovnik
April 18, 2008, 08:39 PM
Sorry, I didn't read your entire post (it was kind of long). But in response to your question: Absolutely! I have some drug dealing neighbors that have threatened me and my family and of course the cops won't do anything about it. I live in Washington so the cops are pretty much worthless and with the overly Liberal attitude around here the criminals have WAY more rights than the law abiding citizens.

Anyway I have thought about it many times how and under what circumstances I would defend myself. I've even thought a lot about whether or not I would even report the incident. If nobody sees or hears anything:)

bogie
April 18, 2008, 08:49 PM
Just an aside, but what is with all the labels?

I've seeing a lots of ones and zeros, on or off, black and white, and very little of shades of grey, much less the rest of the spectrum.

HadEmAll
April 18, 2008, 08:55 PM
Absolutely.

If I wanted to, I guarantee that within an hour, I could find a situation that would allow me to shoot somebody in self-defense. Just by driving to certain parts of town, and walking down the street.

Whether I could get away with it would depend on what kind of story I could manufacture as to why I was there.

All my instincts and desires are to avoid doing that.

MiddleAgedKen
April 18, 2008, 11:16 PM
You don't want to lose a gunfight for lack of shooting back...

I think I could manage two, maybe--if I ever needed more than that, maybe it's just my last message from G_d... ;-)

Eric F
April 18, 2008, 11:48 PM
I have been threatened with premeditated Self-Defense .

I had a room mate that liked to get drunk and get mouthy really bad. So one day when he was sober we talked it out and he came right out and said he wanted to prevoke me into a fight so he could shoot me in self defense as I weighed more than 100 pounds more than he did. ok great. I moved out the next day no problem.

hence my stance on drunks and guns! its no fun comming home and finding rour room mate drunk on the couch pointing a glock at you as you walk through the door. Also hapened 1 time, visit from the sheriff

So yes you can.

Kentak
April 19, 2008, 12:39 AM
I suppose some yahoo could purposely take a stroll late at night through a part of town where his kind isn't common or welcome with the thought of provoking a confrontation merely by his presence. That would be a very warped and dangerous thing to do. If he did succeed in setting up a self-defense shooting, he would probably not get a free walk. There would be some pointed questions as to his reasons for choice of late night activities.

K

Jiggle
April 19, 2008, 03:31 AM
If self defense can be premeditated, then basically every person with a CCW (or a gun kept for self-defense) is guilty of the "crime".

I understand the OP's question. Many of us have taken extensive courses that focus on defeating a human attacker, and I would venture to guess that pretty much everybody here has shot at a human sillouette target. Many of us own several, if not dozens of firearms, and many of us have more than one within reach of us at any given time. Just typing this I have 3 firearms within arm's reach. There are plenty of people out there who would say that I am just looking for trouble, that I am hoping somebody will break in so I can kill them.

I think that given the right circumstances, an anti-gun prosecutor could decide that a person had committed "premeditated" self-defense (which is pretty much just murder). If the person has an extensive firearms and ammo collection and has lots of training, the media could easily paint the picture that this person had just been wating for somebody to come along and rub him the wrong way. It could be made even worse if the state didn't have a "castle doctrine" (I am assuming here that the original crime occurs on the person's property).

Even though the chances of somebody being convicted of such a charge may be slim, it is not out of the realm of possibility. Because of this, I know several people who refuse to alter their firearms from stock condition. Their view is that it would look better if the thug breaking into their house is shot with a "hunting" shotgun with a wood stock and 28" barrel than with a "tactical" gun with a pistol grip, folding stock, extended magazine tube with an 18" barrel and a SureFire light and laser mounted up top.

I don't believe that there is any legal term for "premeditated self-defense", but a motivated anti could still cause somebody quite a bit of grief. It's sad that we have gotten to the point that simply by exercising our rights, we are considered a hazard to society.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2008, 03:39 AM
If he did succeed in setting up a self-defense shooting, he would probably not get a free walk. There would be some pointed questions as to his reasons for choice of late night activities.

Why? What's the basis for your conclusion? If he was not breaking any law or starting any fights, what "pointed questions" do you think would defeat his justification?

Walking in a bad part of town secretly hoping you get attacked is not illegal. Nor would it make an otherwise justified shooting unjustified. It is, however, incredibly stupid since you stand a good chance of getting killed in the process.

tntwatt
April 19, 2008, 03:42 AM
Just my opinion, but the difference of legal vs. criminal needs to be made. Premeditation is a term to describe illegal killing which is planned for a specific crime on a person or group of people. Self defense is legal because you do not plan for a specific loss of life, you are just planning for your general safety.

Evil Monkey
April 19, 2008, 03:51 AM
There is no such thing as "premeditated self defense", even if it was law.

Such an idea cannot be comprehended, simply because it is illogical.

We can say that premeditated murder exists because it is an "action". However, self defense is a "reaction", and thus, could not be premeditated.

CWL
April 19, 2008, 03:59 AM
If you step outside armed, that is "Preparedness"

If you step outside with a firearm fulling planning to shoot somebody that day -that is "Premeditation".

There is a huge difference.


btw, the only person to ever get away with this was President Ronald Reagan. He committed a "Pre-emptive retaliatory strike" against Libya and nobody did anything about it. ;)

Cosmoline
April 19, 2008, 04:03 AM
Self defense is legal because you do not plan for a specific loss of life, you are just planning for your general safety.

No, that's not correct at all. Who told you that? The self defense provisions apply to justify killing when you were faced with imminent and unlawful deadly force. There is no requirement that you only had "general plans" to defend yourself. You may in fact have been under a specific threat from a specific person, or you may have feared a specific neighborhood. It's not illegal to plan to do something legal--ie defend yourself lawfully.

Go read your state's code on self defense.

If you step outside with a firearm fulling planning to shoot somebody that day -that is "Premeditation".

Assuming you plan on murdering them and not simply defend yourself against their imminent, unlawful and deadly force that's correct. But leaving your house armed and suspecting that a particular hit man is going to make a try on our life does not render your lawful defense unlawful unless you try to kill him before he presents an imminent threat.

Evil Monkey
April 19, 2008, 04:11 AM
If you step outside with a firearm fulling planning to shoot somebody that day -that is "Premeditation".

It's premeditated murder if your ACTION is unwarranted.

Because if you go out planning to shoot somebody who threatens your life, and then a person pulls out a knife and tries to stab you, do you NOT have the right to REACT in self defense in that instance?

jakemccoy
April 19, 2008, 04:24 AM
no

-Jake

CWL
April 19, 2008, 04:27 AM
You guys are talking about killing someone.

I'm not even talking about getting to that point. I'm talking about purposefully planning to go out and shoot somebody (whether you know the person(s) or not), whatever the situation.

A reasonable person, if expecting gunplay, would remove themselves from the area of expected violence, so it's not legal self-defense. I believe that is how a DA & court would view the situation. I believe that there is case law where a person has been prosecuted for doing exactly that.

Honu
April 19, 2008, 05:15 AM
Cosmoline :) first aloha and since you have a ton of posts here and I am new and dont know you dont want to start stepping on people :) and I have no clue what you do ?


but I am curious about this you said and where this thought of yours came from ?
I have talked with a prosecutor about this exact thing
Walking in a bad part of town secretly hoping you get attacked is not illegal. Nor would it make an otherwise justified shooting unjustified. It is, however, incredibly stupid since you stand a good chance of getting killed in the process.

the first part is not illegal the second part ? well that might be what gets you in trouble since justified has to be that and if you went in hoping you get attacked does not make it justified it just makes it you got what you want a gun fight !
according to a state prosecutor I know they thought they could really flip against the shooter and sink him as most people dont like vigilante types
the solid gun pro people hate these kind of gun shooters looking for a fight giving guns a bad name ! the left hates this kind of person a gun toting murderer
and kinda leaves the shooter out there on their own with very little defense why they did it

it might make what some might call a justified shooting backfire o since if you were not there it would not have happened

as they said if you get the wrong person against you and they can show how you went into that bad part of town armed looking for a fight it wont come out in your favor most likely

just some thought directly from a prosecutors thoughts of this exact thing we were talking about ;)

again if you have to go into that part of town or get through it etc.. that dif

but even if there was a way around that part of a bad area and you chose not to go that route it might be tougher

again this is worst case scenario against the good guy :) but as we know from some cases sadly good things go bad and nice guys have gone to jail

tntwatt
April 19, 2008, 09:39 AM
I love this, if you start at the beginning of this thread and read them all, you can see how lawyers make their money. Here on THR people are self denfense minded and have at least thought about this issue. Can you imagine how confused the average non-THR type would get when a lawyer got ahold of this line of thought?

Nightwing
April 19, 2008, 09:50 AM
I believe there is, and I believe there is nothing wrong with it. You can premeditate it, but if you don't have to use it then there's no harm. If you do, you were better prepared. There is no crim in thinking ANYTHING!
I remember there was a night ihad to go do music at a church service. I knew there was a guy at a business next door that told someone he was going to kick my "butt" next time he saw me, because the church's music was too loud and offensive (this guy was always in his yard hassling people) . So many times I would go there and be a little edgy on the way in.
That night I walked in not thinking much, and ol Gary appeared.
"Hey. I've had enough of you and i'm gonna kick your A**"
me: "Gary... I've known your intentions for some time now and I'm more than prepared to take you on, and probably level you. In your anger you've prepared to beat me down in the same sloppy manner you live your life.... In my preparedness I've assessed that you are no physical threat to me and, although I absolutely do not want to fight with ANYONE... I will if your poor choices put me in the middle of a situation. At that point, I pray that you have good dental insurance".
Maybe not word for word but it was DARN close to that. Very inspired moment.
Gary starts hootin' and hollerin' and spewing names and complaining about stuff that had nothing to do with anyone I knew.
He then took a swing and hit me dead in the cheek. Didn't hurt, but my eyes went black for a second. It was a hood punch!
I managed to get a gut shot in, and get behind him enough to get his neck in a hold and use all my weight to put him on the ground with my big old 270lb kneecap on his ribs (on the back of his body).
"Gary.... you made a stupid move just now."
Gary: "Rant rant F YOU!!!! I'm gonna kill you when I get up"
Me: "Larry... I know you're full of it, and I don't know what you're trying to prove, but I'm not buying it. I'm going to let you off the ground now, and if you come at me again, you're gonna be on the ground twice as hard next time."
Dead silence....... Gary: "OK"
I let him up.... and he starts to cry!!!! Tells me he's just so mad at so many things, and he's sorry.
It was unbelievable. I could have destroyed Gary, but he was always a little drunk and he was a mess. I actually got to know the guy a little after that and he came to church a few times.
Point is.... I had premeditated how to handle Gary. It made me more responsible. Everything is better with a plan. Without one, it's chaos, and you can make decisions you will regret... even if they were justified.

El Tejon
April 19, 2008, 09:52 AM
Magnum, premeditation is "deliberating upon a contemplated act" (see Black's Law Dictionary). Premeditation is of itself is not a crime. It's one of those phrases that people throw around but do not fully understand, like conspiracy.

I premeditate every time I train for self-defense. Darn right I premeditate self-defense, hopefully all the time.

What has everyone wrapped around the axle is that that modern murder statutes used "premeditation" for the English common law phrase of "malice aforethought". There is nothing wrong with self-defense, whether it is premeditated or not.

Aguila Blanca
April 19, 2008, 12:57 PM
You gotta be kidding, right?

Certainly self-defense is pre-meditated, if it involves carrying a weapon. What does "pre-meditated" mean? It means you thought about it beforehand. I for damn sure think about self-defense, every day when I put a pistol in a holster on my hip, and every time I go to the range to practice.

So what?

Self-defense is not illegal. That's the issue. "Pre-meditated" murder is a bad thing because murder is illegal, and plotting it ahead of time is deemed to be worse than reacting in a moment of impetuousness and committing murder on the spur of the moment. All it does is take an illegal act and ratchet it up to a higher level of being evil.

In those movies, Charles Bronson wasn't engaging in "pre-meditated self-defense," he was engaging in hunting. He was a vigilante. Being prepared to defend yourself while hoping it never becomes necessary is a very different circumstance from going out and inviting attacks, and HOPING you'll be attacked. Also, Bronson's goal wasn't to defend himself, his goal was to kill assailants. That's a fine distinction, but it's an important distinction.

conw
April 19, 2008, 02:10 PM
"Pre-meditation" is tricky since it involves some sort of planning ahead, but there is no set rule as to how much.

If a crazy gunman started shooting up your school/office/post-office etc. and you went to your car for a weapon and returned and killed him. That would come pretty close to pre-meditated self defense.

"self" is an issue, but in this case you would be in danger just as much as the other victims so I think it would count.

Sebastian, I get where you're drawing the line, although I disagree that there is a greater degree of premeditation in that defensive (though not self-defense) killing than in a regular self-defense killing.

If another person is demonstrably at risk, and they could legally defend themselves with lethal force at that moment in time, it is legal to do so for them - at least in North Carolina. Therefore, the "situation" occurred when said psycho started killing people; you didn't have prior knowledge of him doing that, and you are already in the midst of it when you decide to go to the car and get the gun.

The thing is, your choice to legally kill him in defense of others does not imply premeditation with regard to his actions' effects on yours. You are still reacting directly to his actions.

A greater degree of premeditation, in this case, would be more like if he told you he was going to do it days before and instead of alerting authorities then you started packing in response to said threat.

I disagree with 357 that premeditation "only exists" in legalese when applies to crimes. Premeditation means premeditation, and it has one definition. It may be an exacerbating circumstance in a case in court, but it has the same definition as always. I know I'm splitting hairs, but it's less confusing when it's put that way. It may only interest courts when it is applied to illegal actions, but it is still the exact same concept.

Can self-defense be pre-meditated? Yes.
If it is truly "self-defense" does one need to worry if it was technically premeditated? No.
Do people pre-meditate self-defense to the degree that it becomes murder? Yes.
Is it still self-defense? No.

Kentak
April 24, 2008, 11:25 AM
Cosmoline said

Why? What's the basis for your conclusion? If he was not breaking any law or starting any fights, what "pointed questions" do you think would defeat his justification?

Walking in a bad part of town secretly hoping you get attacked is not illegal. Nor would it make an otherwise justified shooting unjustified. It is, however, incredibly stupid since you stand a good chance of getting killed in the process.

The basis for my conclusion is Ohio law and the intent of CCW law and use of deadly force law.

It's one thing to have to walk through a dangerous location on the way from the bus stop to your home, and to be armed for your own protection, and quite another to purposely put yourself in a situation you know may provoke aggression with the thought of using that situation to use self-defense as an excuse to shoot someone. If you don't see that distinction, frankly, you are a worse danger to RKBA than an outright anti-gunner because that attitude justifies their suspicions about RKBA.

The situation I set up is clearly a "Death Wish" vigilante situation. Leave the sting operations to the cops, and plan for your own legitimate defense needs. But, to think you can skate after intentionally inserting yourself in a hostile environment is ignorant.

Here's a link to Ohio AG's guidebook for CCW holders. After reading the relevant sections about self defense and deadly force you still believe Ohio law would not lead to "pointed questions," well, fine. BTW, I seriously doubt Ohio law on this matter is terribly different from that in many other states.

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_booklet20040319-72.pdf

K

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there such a thing as premeditated Self-Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!