Intend to kill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have a right to self defense.

You do NOT have a right to kill.

If you accidentally kill someone while exercising your right of self defense the law has exceptions to the homicide charge (and other charges) you face.
 
You have a right to self defense.

You do NOT have a right to kill.

If you accidentally kill someone while exercising your right of self defense the law has exceptions to the homicide charge (and other charges) you face.

I agree that you don't have the right to kill. However, using deadly force is intentional, and death is considered the probable and intended outcome whether or not they survive. Shooting someone in defense does not result in an "accidental" death, it simply justifies the homicide.

At least in my state, deadly force is defined as: "force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; "deadly force" includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument"

Once the threat has ceased, continuing to use deadly force will no longer be justified and will likely result in assualt/manslaughter/murder charges.
 
However, using deadly force is intentional, and death is considered the probable and intended outcome whether or not they survive.

And stopping is part of the claim of self defense in many states.

Death was NOT your intended outcome.

Stopping the attack was.

It all may seem like being picky, but having used deadly force to defend yourself, you need to start stacking some cards in YOUR favor.

You have committed a homicide.

Self defense is an affirmative plea to the charge of homicide resulting from your self defense.

You are about to admit to a homicide.
You not only fired the gun that killed, you intended to fire the gun.

And then point to the reasons it is NOT a crime (murder).

You must meet all the rules of the statute law and any applicable case law to succeed in your plea.

It was NOT an 'accidental shooting,' but that does NOT mean it was your intention to kill.

You intended to stop the action against you.

I really doubt you can find a single state (or other law) that says you may kill someone, no matter what they may be trying to do to you.

The laws allow you to defend yourself, and if death (or grave bodily injury in some jurisdictions) is attempted on you you can respond with force that may be deadly.
It still does not give permission to kill.

It does not say you may kill.

It says you may use force that could result in death.

Being excused for the outcome of your actions is not the same as being given permission for the outcome.

"It was not really self defense. He just wanted to kill someone."
 
And stopping is part of the claim of self defense in many states.

Death was NOT your intended outcome.

Stopping the attack was.

It all may seem like being picky, but having used deadly force to defend yourself, you need to start stacking some cards in YOUR favor.
."

I agree completely that that is what you should state in your defense. Impressions on jurors can make a big difference on the outcome of a trial.

I was just pointing out that the courts view all use of deadly force in self defense as intentionally causing any resulting death and that it is not accidental. Therefore, a person should be certain that their use is justified within the state they reside, or else be ready to be charged with a homicide.

I also agree that once the threat has been stopped and if they are still alive, killing them at that point would not be justified. There is never a "right" to kill, just a justification which must meet specific criteria which varies from state to state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top