I feel no compulsion to convince anyone of any argument. I find a few statements made in this thread so far silly, and others grounded in beliefs that have no basis in reality and legal theory. They represent opinions and the world as we wish it, as opposed to the way it is.
Frankly, Penguin, if you remain committed to your beliefs about the appropriateness of armed men having the luxury of settling disputes “man to man”, you might just one day be afforded the opportunity to convince the state of it. Jurors will ponder why someone who decides to arm himself feels he can fight recklessly, for any reason other than fending off an immediate attack.
Your scenario presented still contains the assumption that the blow – a shove, was necessary. Intent does factor; was it out of anger, or the need to stop an assault?
PlayboyPenguin said: Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. . . .
Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime.
Well, lets hear it? Site a case with the previously stated circumstances where a person defending themselves was convicted of a crime. I am open to hear it.
I’ll show you actual cases, not hypothetical scenarios, where actual force was used and responded to, but the “defender” was convicted. I have 3 cases for your consideration.
1. United States of America v. Bennie L. PETERSON, Appellant. Commonly cited case for demonstrating to law students that an initiator or provoker does not have justification for using self-defense, even if an encounter degrades into one that threatens the initiator’s life.
Peterson
History:
Three men had gone to an alley behind the defendant’s home to steal windshield wipers from Peterson’s wrecked car. The deceased, Keitt, had taken items from his car before, and was warned that day by Peterson not to do it again. Peterson emerged from his house to challenge Keitt, words were exchanged, and Peterson returned to his house to retrieve his pistol. Keitt was about to leave with the stolen property. Peterson paused briefly to load the pistol. "If you move," he shouted to Keitt, "I will shoot." He walked to a point in the yard slightly inside a gate in the rear fence and, pistol in hand, said, "If you come in here I will kill you." Keitt exited from his car, took a few steps toward Peterson and exclaimed, "What the hell do you think you are going to do with that?" Keitt then made an about-face, walked back to his car and got a lug wrench. With the wrench in a raised position, Keitt advanced toward Peterson, who stood with the pistol pointed toward him. Peterson warned Keitt not to "take another step" and, when Keitt continued onward, shot him in the face from a distance of about ten feet. Death was apparently instantaneous.
Finding: Manslaughter.
It has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life. The fact that the deceased struck the first blow, fired the first shot or made the first menacing gesture does not legalize the self-defense claim if in fact the claimant was the actual provoker. In sum, one who is the aggressor in a conflict culminating in death cannot invoke the necessities of self-preservation.
We think the evidence plainly presented an issue of fact as to whether Peterson's conduct was an invitation to and provocation of the encounter which ended in the fatal shot.
2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.
Ammons
History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.
Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.
Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.
3. Ernest William Ramsey, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Virginia. The defendant, attacked and struck with a baseball bat during an argument initiated by the defendant, produces a knife and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury decided he was culpable in his death and declined self-defense.
Ramsey
At trial, the evidence proved that when appellant called his friend, Angel Sanchez, he spoke with the deceased, J.D. Stephens, who lived at the Sanchez home. Later that afternoon, Sanchez arrived at appellant's apartment to pick him up. Sanchez told appellant he needed to get some money from his mother. Sanchez testified that appellant said "[Stephens] needed to stop talking so much **** and that if he didn't somebody was going to hurt him or kill him." Sanchez testified that although appellant "seemed mad at [Stephens]," appellant was agitated mostly because of the delay and said he did not want to be late.
When they arrived at the Sanchez's home, Sanchez went inside and appellant waited in the car. Stephens, who had been drinking alcohol, was sitting in the living room holding a baseball bat. After ten or fifteen minutes, appellant entered the house because Sanchez "took too long." When Sanchez came into the living room, he noticed that Stephens and appellant were "having words." According to Sanchez, appellant was "standing over top [Stephens]," telling Stephens that he "needed to quit talking so much ****." Stephens told appellant "to get out, get out of his house" and was still holding the baseball bat. Sanchez testified that he told appellant, "Come on, let's go, leave him alone." Sanchez then walked outside with his mother.
Sanchez and his mother walked across the driveway and were standing on a neighbor's porch. They had been on the neighbor's porch for less than five minutes when. Sanchez testified that he saw appellant open the screen door, walk backwards off the porch, and walk away. Stephens then emerged from the house with one hand over his chest and the other holding the baseball bat. Stephens said, "Call the law, he got me, he got me." The medical examiner's report indicated Stephens died of a single stab wound in his left chest area.
Appellant testified he went into the house because Sanchez "took so long coming back." He testified that he was not agitated from the telephone conversation and did not start the argument with Stephens. However, he told Stephens that he "should stop talking so much **** on the telephone to people that you don't know nothing about."
He testified that after Sanchez and his mother went out the door, he turned to follow them. Stephens then hit him from behind with the baseball bat. After Stephens hit him on the back and shoulder with the bat, Stephens hit him a second time across the shoulder. As Stephens again "was coming down . . . with the baseball bat," appellant retrieved his knife and opened it. Appellant testified that he held the knife, intending to frighten Stephens away with it, and that Stephens ran into the blade. Appellant testified that he had not had any fights or difficulty with Stephens until that day and that he had the knife because he used it in his work.
Appellant testified that he walked to a nearby store, where he asked Sam Brown, a captain with the sheriff's office, to call the police because he had stabbed someone. After appellant gave a statement at the police station, the police took him to the hospital because he indicated that his shoulder was hurting. The treating doctor testified that appellant had a contusion of the right shoulder and that the injury could have been caused by a blunt object such as a baseball bat. He proscribed medication and a sling to hold the arm.
A toxicologist testified that Stephens had a blood alcohol level of .22% by weight by volume at the time of his death.
Finding: Second Degree Murder. The jury disbelieved the Defendant’s assertion to self defense, and looked to his statements and actions for reasons to believe he provoked and incited the attack.
As I stated earlier, you roll the dice, you may loose. Here were 3 cases of men whose lives were in danger. Yet by their actions:
One was not afforded the ability to argue self-defense, by matter of law, PERIOD. He forfeited it.
One was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
One had his state of mind evaluated by damaging statements normally considered heresay, and those statements impacted his claim to self-defense.