« "Castle doctrine" bill in AZ | Main | Ithaca shotgun co. reviving »
Self-Defense legislation -- a proposal
I have a proposal for self-defense and "castle" legislation. The usual standard for self-defense is reasonably belief that the other person is going to do something (use deadly force, etc.). The key is the defender's belief and whether that was reasonable.
As a result, you generally can't introduce evidence that the use of force really WAS reasonable, unless the defender knew of that information when he/she acted. Say they shot a knife-wielder outside arm's reach. The defender cannot introduce evidence as to how fast a knife attack can be launched, unless they knew of the evidence at the time. Or in cases where there is much proof the attacker is dangerous -- he had convictions for violence, had seriously maimed others in the past, etc. -- again, not relevant unless the defender had learned of this prior to the defense.
Why not modify statutes so that the defense can be proven either by proof that use of force was justified OR that it was reasonably believed to be so? Self-defense is, after all, justified because no honest citizen should have to die at the hands of a thug -- why now allow proof that that was exactly the case? The reasonable belief standard was meant to give the defender leeway where they have to act quickly. Keep that, but also allow proof that the person snuffed genuinely was a social menace.
I suspect such a bill would have the backing of law enforcement, since LEOs also wind up using force and having to prove justification under the same statutory standards. The local prosecutor might gripe, but the cops would be all for it.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
I suspect such a bill would have the backing of law enforcement, since LEOs also wind up using force and having to prove justification under the same statutory standards. The local prosecutor might gripe, but the cops would be all for it.
How often are LEOs prosecuted for using force?
Say they shot a knife-wielder outside arm's reach. The defender cannot introduce evidence as to how fast a knife attack can be launched, unless they knew of the evidence at the time.
When I bought my first handgun for self-defense, I tracked down a copy of Andrew F. Branca's out of print The Law of Self-Defense (interlibrary loan is a wonderful thing). One section dealt with this very subject, down to details about something called the Tuller (sp?) Test that showed that an average human can, from a stationary position, cover a distance of 21 feet in under 7 seconds. Add to that the point about "reasonableness" entailing only information a "reasonable" person would know unless the defender can prove he possessed special knowledge beforehand, and I decided to make judicious use of a photocopier for those relevant pages and Priority Mailed them to myself. The still-sealed and dated envelope sits in my fire safe right now against the future possibility that I might need to prove I knew about the Tuller Test.
Jason, Thank you for that reference. I know very well that an assailant can cover 20-30 feet before most people can pull a trigger. Of course I also hve a couple of decades of martial arts training under my belt. Letting a jury know that, while it proves knowledge of engagement ranges also prejudices them against me if I were involved in a shooting of a melee weapon wielding assailant.
Now, Now you can't have that. Someone might think you were trying to bring back the old "He needed killing" defense. Just convince the jusy that the man you killed really needed killing. The fun part is that you have to admit to the killing. If you don't convince the jury it's a very fast verdict with no appeal. Still I think it would be a good idea. Well in Texas anyway.