Posted by fallout mike: If you try to commit a violent crime against someone then the person defending themselves should not even have to go to court. Period.
Human beings have been killing other human beings for various reasons since the beginning of the human race. The age old questions have been, when is killing justified, how can a killing be judged after the fact, and what is to be done when an unjustified killing (or any other crime, for that matter) has occurred.
Systems of law have evolved over several millenia, and our current system of laws has its roots in the English Common Law set forth by judges eight or nine centuries ago. Here are two key tenets of the law that apply to this case:
- While most acts of violence are treated as crimes, one may lawfully use deadly force when necessary to defend onself against death or serious injury, and sometimes, to prevent certain forcible felonies.
- Individuals may not themselves pass judgment over others or exact justice for a crime that has been committed.
So, how do we decide whether an act of violence was lawful or criminal? There is obviously only one way.
The case has to go to court.
In the Oklahoma case at hand, the court found that the killing of the criminal victim did
not constitute an act of defense against a violent crime. The videotape, and reports released last year about some of the evidence, are rather convincing in showing that the man who was killed, though he had committed a crime of violence, no longer presented a threat to the shooter.
That much is probably indisputable, and the jury's verdict certainly reflects that finding. But it went farther than that: that Oklahoma jury found unanimously that the shooter caused the death of the victim
unlawfully and with malice aforethought--that he acted with the
deliberate intention to unlawfully take the life of the victim.
The videotape appears to be reasonably clear on that also. However, the only way to find out why the jurors all came to that conclusion would be to interview them. None of us here sat through the entire trial, saw all of the evidence, heard all of the testimony, and then decided in accordance with the Oklahoma jury instructions. We therefore cannot judge.
One would hope that anyone who might have thought that a crime victim would be justified in shooting someone in retribution or for any other unlawful reason, and who has studied this case, has learned something valuable from it.
