Intend to kill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loosedhorse

member
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
3,453
Location
eastern Massachusetts
In a recent thread about the general or universal inadvisability of warning shots, one of the more interesting objections made to them was this one:
If you use deadly force by way of a warning shot, you just opened the door to being sued because you will be required to admit that you did not intend to kill yet you used deadly force.
Click to expand...

My immediate reaction was: I will ALWAYS admit, if ever I use deadly force, that I do NOT intend to kill my attacker. I intend only to stop him, but of course realize (since I am using deadly force) that the attacker's death or permanent maiming is the anticipatable result. But killing him is not my intent.

So: if you were forced, in the extreme necessity of self-defense, to use deadly force (let's say a handgun) on an attacker, is it your intent to kill?

This question gets asked a lot of ways:"is the primary 'purpose' of firearms to kill, and specifically to kill persons?" And, "is there ever a right to kill someone?"

Question: when it comes to the use of deadly force, is there an important distinction between intending to kill and intending to stop? Or is it, as Oscar Wilde might say, a distinction without a difference?

(Moderators: I'm not sure if this q belongs in legal, but I am interested in its legal repercussions, if any.)
 
My ONLY reason is to stop a threat. If that means the threat goes away because of my verbal skills, great. If the threat goes away after I present my firearm, good. Sometimes, threats can be handled without firing a shot. I am WILLING to take it that far, but I would rather not. I don't want to kill anyone, but if presented with no other choice, then yes I will.
 
Once you have an attacker whose attack has met the justifying criteria for use of deadly force, "stop" and "kill" are effectively the same, this is just semantics.

I'm not suggesting it's not important, but if you're involved in an SD shooting, I wouldn't discuss your intent with anyone but your lawyer. It's one of those nonfactual variables that can be twisted into anything.

"He *intended* to kill his assailant," says the DA to the jury...

"stop" sounds better, meaning is basically the same.
 
I think we've covered this ad nauseum in probably 100 threads.

The lawful defender does not have the right to kill. Killing is a possible, and acceptable, by-product of an action taken to stop the death or grievous injury of self or another (or one of a small handful of other forcible felonies depending on local laws).

Society, in a few fairly rare instances in some states, may decide that a person must DIE as punishment for especially heinous acts. But an individual person NEVER has the authority or right to pass judgment and execute someone for any act, ever.

If it becomes necessary to shoot someone in order to make them cease attacking me or harming me or another person I am responsible for, then I may use deadly force. Using deadly force does not mean I am allowed to pursue their death, only that the force I am allowed to use MAY cause death.

80% of gunshot victims survive. That includes cases where someone shoots another in what is later ruled a justifiable act. In those 80% of cases, death was not required to stop the attack and/or save a life. Pursuing death beyond the point of cessation of the attack would have been unlawful homicide = manslaughter or murder.
 
"stop" and "kill" are effectively the same, this is just semantics
Click to expand...

No! Stop means that they have ceased attacking, period. They died, they fell wounded, they surrendered, they ran away, etc. In all cases the attack has stopped, and the violence you levy against them must stop.

Kill means you are pursuing an end beyond and independent of stopping their attack -- and an intent that in something like 80% of cases would be carrying your own violent reaction beyond any legal justification.
 
we've covered this ad nauseum in probably 100 threads.
Click to expand...
I was actually surprised when the statement was made that if one uses deadly force, one better intend to kill!
semantics
Click to expand...
"Semantics" can help clarify things.

For example, I do believe that (when I am attacked with deadly force illegally and have no safe retreat) I have a moral and legal right to kill my attacker. I can demonstrate that right legally: if I do in fact (and unfortunately) kill my attacker, and can show that the above conditions applied (illegal deadly attack against me without an avenue of safe escape), that is usually considered a "perfect defense."

That doesn't mean I intend or want to kill; but it sure seems I have that right under those specific circumstances. If I walk into a car dealership, I have a legal right (assuming I've paid my taxes!) to spend all the money in my bank account plus whatever some fool will lend me on that new car; but that doesn't mean I intend or want to spend that much.

I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong: there is never a "right" to kill. And that will tell me that I'm using the the word "right" differently than they are. Perhaps they'll even explain why my use of the word "right" isn't, well, right. :eek:

So, it would be semantics; but still helpful to me.
 
The Jerome Ersland case presents a very sobering recent example of the difference.

Mr. Ersland was attacked and his life was in danger. The law recognized that he had a right to stop those attacking him. But he obviously had a specific intent -- to KILL those attacking him -- and he carried it out -- arguably in pursuing the second attacker out of the area, and definitely in coming back to complete the job on the first attacker when he realized the man was still alive.

You may maintain that it is ok to intend to kill someone attacking you -- as long as you remember just when to stop if you "fail" to do so through actions that would be justified under the law. But that's very dangerous ground and a dumb game to play. The goal is to STOP the attack. Intending to kill someone may cause you to overstep your lawful justification under the extreme stress of the event.
 
Look at it this way -- in most jurisdictions the self-defense claim can be summed up like this:

Brandishing a weapon, shooting in a public place, shooting AT someone, shooting someone, and KILLING someone are all crimes. If you are pushed into a situation where you MUST do one or all of those things in order to stop your life from being taken, the state is allowed to set aside your guilt for those crimes because it recognizes that your right to continue living is greater than the right to life of someone who has perpetrated unlawful violence on you.

You offer an "affirmative defense." That is you say, "Yes, I did it. I am guilty of that act. -- AND, here's why I had to do it..." The court then may say that your need was sufficient to meet the standards set out in the law, and may set your guilt aside.

At no point is the court saying that you had a right to purposefully KILL someone. They're merely accepting that this person died as a result, basically, of their own actions.
 
If it walks like a duck...

I do understand what you say; and that a SD homocide is ruled "justified" or "justifiable."

But we also speak of "wrongful" and "rightful" killing; and one of the meanings of "rightful" (as in "rightful owner") is that of legal right, I think--not simply "just" or "proper."

If I have a "right" to do something--protest politically, for example, at a certain time or place, and perhaps with a permit--and I do it, I may in fact get arrested, and later have to show that I was within my rights (or, conversely, force the prosecutor to show that I wasn't). The fact that I may have to go to court to assert and claim my right doesn't, I think, mean I don't actually have that right.

In many states, if you kill your attacker (under the proper, demonstratable circumstances) not only do you have a perfect defense to criminal charge, you also are immune to civil suit.

Again, perhaps I'm not understanding the proper use of the word. But if a right is something that a person can have in a particular circumstance and not in others, then it seems that when confronted with unavoidable, illegal, lethal attack a person does have the right to kill his attacker--because if he does so (and it is shown or apparent that the required conditions exitsed), he suffers no legal or civil penalty.

It seems to act as if it is a right, even if we call it something else.

And none of that means I would intend to kill an attacker (I would intend to stop).
 
As I understand it, there is a justification of self-defense to use lethal force, but not a right to use lethal force: there is a right to self defense that creates a justifiction under conditions that otherwise would be manslaughter or assault absent the justification.

If a reasonable person would be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm from an attacker with ability and opportunity to put life or limb in jeopardy, then not only is lethal force justified in response, but any less-than-lethal response is also justified. Self-defense is not a right to kill, but a right to stay alive in the face of a criminal attack that puts one in fear of death or maiming. The vast majority of self-defense with a gun are brandishment-only: even in fear of loss of life or limb, most folks don't want to kill, but to stay alive and whole, and will do that without killing if at all possible.

(I watched the Erslund shooting surveillance video tape. According to the explanation of self-defense law I had in HCP class, when Erslund went back to shoot and kill the wounded (unarmed) robber, technically the robber would have been justified in shooting him if the robber had been armed.)
 
the robber would have been justified in shooting him if the robber had been armed.
Click to expand...
Morally, perhaps. But legally, the robber was still guilty of a crime and I think had he shot and killed Erslud it would have been manslaughter if not felony murder.

That is not at all meant to excuse Erslund; he was justly convicted, IMHO.
there is a right to self defense that creates a justifiction...
Click to expand...
I would have thought that the ("basic", "fundamental", "essential," etc.; whatever word we prefer) right to self-defense implies a conditional right to use lethal force in self-defense when one is where one has a right to be, doing what one has a right to be doing, and no other means but lethal force will suffice.

If it is not a right, is that because there is no such thing as a conditional right?
 
Last edited:
You have a right to self-defense under all circumstances. This does not equal a right to KILL in all circumstances. You can have a rightful act of self-defense that does not include killing. The two things are not the same at all.

You don't have a perfect defense to a criminal charge, in some cases you may have a strong one. And even in states (like mine) that have laws that protect you from a civil suit, nothing is ever guaranteed. Having a law like this does not in any way affect my actions, I don't want to be a test case for anything.
 
perfect defense
Click to expand...
This a legal term of art, and I use it only in that sense.
Perfect defense is a defense that meets all legal requirements and results the full acquittal of the accused. A defense is a denial, or answer or plea in opposition to the truth or validity of a claim by a plaintiff. For example a perfect self-defense meets all of the generally accepted legal conditions for such a claim to be valid. It is the use of force by one who accurately appraises the necessity and the amount of force to repel an attack.
Click to expand...
However: is there no "right" to kill, even in justified self-defense, perhaps because we should consider that killing is always wrong. Inherently. Malum in se. Not just murder, but all killing of humans, is always wrong.

That would explain things to me. A wrong can be "justified," perhaps, but it can never be "right." Is that closer to it?
 
Hyperblole???

I have read most of the 100 posts referred to. I was wondering if any of the reaponders had the misfortune to have to excercise deadly force with the results being the killing of another human being. I believe in the circumstances where your life or the lives of loved ones are at stake the shooting of the perpetrator is more a "fight or flight" reaction with no fore thought of killing the threat. I believe that if you have the premeditated intent to kill and there were other alternatives you have probably committed Murder. If anyone has had the misfortune to excercise the right to self defense with resultant death of another I wonder what went through theie mind both before and after the incident
 
Last edited:
First, self defense is not a right or a plea. It is an affirmative defense against a charge of murder or at least manslaughter. And using deadly force in self defense MUST be intentional. You may not intend to kill, but you must intend to fire. If you say firing the gun was an accident, or that the gun just went off, or that you didn't know it was loaded, then you can't claim self defense. Self defense must be a deliberate, intentional action or it is not self defense, it is accidental shooting or whatever.

Jim
 
Posted by Loosedhorse: However: is there no "right" to kill, even in justified self-defense, perhaps because we should consider that killing is always wrong. Inherently. Malum in se. Not just murder, but all killing of humans, is always wrong.

That would explain things to me. A wrong can be "justified," perhaps, but it can never be "right." Is that closer to it?
Click to expand...

No. One is justified in using force, including deadly force, when it is immediately necessary, to defend against death or serious bodily harm (and in some jurisdictions, to prevent certain kinds of serious crimes under certain circumstances). If such force is justified, it is not "wrong."

Deadly force is generally defined as force that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

One's purpose is to defend or prevent, not to kill. Should one's justifiied action result in killing, that is an unfortunate result, but to say that is is "wrong" does not follow.
 
Here is another way of looking at it:

A lawyer explained that Deadly force can never be used over anything that happened in the past. Only the present and future. Shooting someone for something that they DID in the past, even just a few seconds ago becomes an act of punishment or retribution. You may only use deadly force to stop what someone is DOING or is about to DO.
 
Owen Sparks said:
Here is another way of looking at it:

A lawyer explained that Deadly force can never be used over anything that happened in the past. Only the present and future. Shooting someone for something that they DID in the past, even just a few seconds ago becomes an act of punishment or retribution. You may only use deadly force to stop what someone is DOING or is about to DO.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that. However, one needs to be aware of the fact that what someone did in the past (specifically a few seconds ago, such as having shot and/or killed a person in my presence) would very possibly be sufficient grounds for assuming he fully intends to continue to shoot and/or kill me or anyone else immediately present, without specifically making that intent known.

In other words, if a person shoots and kills another and I see it happen, it's both immoral and illegal for me to shoot him as a reaction to the murder. However, the fact that he just murdered someone may very likely be reason enough for me to assume to plans to kill me or someone else in the immediate future, which is reason enough for me to use deadly force.

Just about the only exception imaginable is if he immediately made clear sign of giving up, such as tossing his weapon aside and diving into a spread-eagle position on the ground with hands stretched out. If he's still holding a weapon, even loosely at his side, I'm shooting.

Aside from all this, I thim Sam nailed this topic very thoroughly in posts 4 and 5, as others have mentioned.
 
The distinction is between what state the shot one is in; it's all about the physical evidence. Does the cadaver look like it was executed or a victim of overkill? Shooting an intruder nineteen times with an AR-15 is going to be a hard case to prove in any court, because using that much force on just one man isn't going to look like you only shot to stop the threat, versus say a guy with three 9 mm wounds scattered across his body. The proclaimed intent does not matter if the evidence indicates otherwise.

For example, I recently got into a bit of a car crash where I rear ended somebody. It was a pure accident and I was only looking down for a few seconds at my GPS, but still I hit the car in front of me. Nobody was hurt and both the cars could still function, but because I am legally the one at fault, I have been cited for reckless driving and could end up with a criminal record if convicted. I didn't meant for it to happen, but I still must face the consequences.

So back to your question, the evidence of the case trumps your proclaimed intent, so if you kill an armed intruder, but the body looks like a very red swiss cheese, then your claim of self defense looks like a flimsy attempt at covering yourself. And saying that you intended to kill someone puts you into the category for murder, or depending on how well your defense goes, manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
The best way of explaining or rephrasing what the person quoted in the OP meant is this:

It is a bad idea to admit that you used lethal force when you felt lethal force was not warranted.

This comes from a disconnect: legally, a warning shot may be considered lethal force. If you believe a warning shot is acceptable to use as, well, a non-lethal warning shot, you probably should reconcile that with the legal fact that if you deploy lethal force, you will have to justify it.

Strategically speaking this means that if you are legally justified to use a warning shot, i.e. there is truly imminent fear of death in your mind, you would be advised to use a more effective strategy. If you are NOT in a position where lethal force is acceptable, do not use a half-measure like a "warning shot" that is considered lethal force legally.
 
self defense is not a right
Click to expand...
Self-defense is most certainly a right, in fact an "inherent" right per SCOTUS.
the evidence of the case trumps your proclaimed intent, so if you kill an armed intruder, but the body looks like a very red swiss cheese, then your claim of self defense looks like a flimsy attempt at covering yourself.
Click to expand...
That's not perhaps directly related to the topic, but I see your point. Still, I don't believe there is a statutory limit on how many times you can shoot to stop, though you must stop once the threat is (reasonably perceived to be) ended.

As one of my instructors envisioned it, "If they ask me, 'But why did you have to go and shoot him 10 times?' the answer is 'Because I shot him 9 times and he was still doing what I started shooting him for!'"
what the person quoted in the OP meant is this:

It is a bad idea to admit that you used lethal force when you felt lethal force was not warranted.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But the question posed specified that lethal force WAS justified, and that the person using the warning shot understood that lethal force was called for, and that a warning shot constitutes use of lethal force.

I believe his point was that a warning shot, when lethal force was justified, would risk the appearence that the shooter did not believe lethal force was justified. (Maybe it would be best if neither one of us "supposed" what the poster meant, and we just let his words stand as written without re-interpreting them for him. And also maybe best not to re-hash the arguments of a closed thread.)
 
What is your states policy for the police concerning warning shots? They are probably trained to NEVER fire warning shots. I would follow the same policy.

Then again, you might “miss” if you did not want to risk killing a prowler.
 
What is your states policy for the police concerning warning shots? They are probably trained to NEVER fire warning shots. I would follow the same policy.
Click to expand...
Again: covered in the closed thread. OT here.

I used the phrase from the closed thread with the specific question of whether lethal force should only be used if one "intends to kill." The question of a "right" to kill is also interesting. Warning shots, while interesting, are stick-a-fork-in-it done.
 
Alright, I give. If I'm ever so unfortunate to become a victim, I will not use deadly force, I will use stopping force.

Is that better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Misunderstanding Intent and "Shooting to Stop"
Replies
6
Views
552
Robert
Robert
C
  • Locked
Lethal force means killing
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
pax
P
Ben86
  • Locked
The Use of Deadly Force in Defense of My Dogs
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
TexasRifleman
T
S
  • Locked
Immediacy, ability, and intent.
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
Esky
E
G
  • Locked
(PA) Murder charge against gay man attacked thrown out
Replies
13
Views
715
Gray Peterson
G
Back
Top