12-04-2004, 08:04 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: ::::::||||||||||||:::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: :::::::::::||::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Posts: 7,197
|
Quote:
The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.
The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ?I am about to shoot you? might well constitute sufficient provocation.
One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant?s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker?s special training.
U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ?Retreat to the wall? is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances.
Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ?suddenly escalates? the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.
|
The last part is important.
"Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ?suddenly escalates? the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense."
__________________
Amen
|
|
|