What is Homicide?
First of all, it's important to distinguish between murder and homicide. Murder is a specific crime, and all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder.
"Homicide" is not necessarily a crime. It might not or might not be a crime.
Homicide is the killing of one person by another. A homicide can be --
- Accidental: An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.
- Negligent: A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.
- The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct: This is the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
- Intentional without malice (evil intent): This is the crime of voluntary manslaughter.
- Intentional with malice: This is the crime of murder.
- Intentional, premeditated and with malice: This is the crime of first degree murder.
The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.
So if you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.
Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.
What is Justifiable Homicide?
According to
FBI statistics in 2010 there were
278 justifiable homicides by private citizens. These links take you to the FBI data providing a lot more information.
According to the
Wall Street Journal the numbers of justifiable homicides may have increased in States with Stand Your Ground laws. So what does it mean when we call a homicide "justifiable"?
Our society frowns on one human intentionally killing or hurting another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.
So under some circumstances an intentional killing of one person by another, although
prima facie (on its face) is a crime, if the legal standards for justification have been met, the actor is relieved from criminal (and civil) liability; and the homicide is classified as justifiable.
The original rule was that before using force in self defense, one had a duty to retreat if he could do so in complete safety. And this did not apply in your home, because your home was your place of refuges; and no one should be able to force you to leave your place of refuges. And of course, the duty to retreat reflected the core societal value that intentionally hurting another human was inherently repugnant, and resort to violence was to be avoided when possible.
The real idea behind Stand Your Ground laws is to avoid having to deal with a dispute about whether one could have safely retreated. That could often be a tough question. A difficult side question would be whether the actor, in the heat of the moment during a rapidly unfolding and dangerous emergent situation could even have been reasonably expected to have been aware of an available means of escape. So to have the protection of a Stand Your Ground law, all other requirements need to legally justify your act of violence against another human still need to be satisfied.
How do Stand Your Ground (or Castle Doctrine) Laws Work?
See
this post for an extensive discussion based on Florida law.
A Counterpoint to Locke, Perhaps
Consider Blackstone (From the
1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289):
...Force may be used in self defense, in which "...if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force..." with the caveat that, "...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention, for then the defender would himself become an aggressor..."
However, note that under what Blackstone refers to as reprisal, once property is taken, it may be recovered or retained only if, "...it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace....." Blackstone notes, "...the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property ; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society...
Consider the
Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (footnotes omitted, emphasis added):
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.
"The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."...
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's....
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility....
(with a few exceptions such as myself and 5 or 10 friends), I feel pretty confident that most of this is biased bunk, but I haven't been able to find info to refute the aforementioned arguments. I need help understanding the laws in general, and the statistics behind them so I can make more effective arguments. Can you all give me a hand in understanding the situation better?
