?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
By any means necessary - A little less than a happy high
komos
komos
By any means necessary
Query: if a party were to kill someone whom he believed desired him dead and who might have had the means or might have acquired the means by which to attack him, would it be possible for the party to claim that his "preemptive strike" was an act of self-defense? Would this be viable as a legal defense?

Just curious, is all...


On the upside, I suppose it would mean a possible return to a dueling culture.

Current Mood: I feel like a duck with an M16

6 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
From: couplingchaos Date: April 15th, 2003 07:14 am (UTC) (Link)
I think it's only a legal defense if you're presently in front of them and you can convince the court that escape wasn't an option. That, and you believed at that moment that the amount of force you used (in this case, killing) was absolutely necessary to ensure your survival.
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2003 07:29 am (UTC) (Link)
Same justification, different setting. The one is acceptable, the other not.
alex_victory From: alex_victory Date: April 15th, 2003 09:14 am (UTC) (Link)
I learned about self-defense when I was on a jury in an assault and battery trial.

To claim self-defense, you must be unable to flee, and you can only use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect yourself.
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2003 09:23 am (UTC) (Link)
Right.
From: skygoodwill Date: April 15th, 2003 11:39 am (UTC) (Link)
In such a case, one would seek an arbitor, present evidence of such a threat, and ask for mediation. No, murder is never the answer. Self-defense is only just when it is an actual physical reflex of proximity.
komos From: komos Date: April 15th, 2003 02:07 pm (UTC) (Link)

That's precisely how I was thinking about this.

Thanks.
6 comments or Leave a comment