This is based off of British Common Law and IMO. It would also require the defense to prove they acted in self defense instead of the prosecution proving they didn't. To be self defense the defendant must prove that they acted in accordance with these 5 tenants of law. 1. Innocence- They were not committing a crime when the need for self defense arose. No person can claim self defense if the situation necessitating self defense was the result of a crime they committed. 2. Perception- There was a clear an present threat of death of grave bodily harm. In order to claim self defense there must have been a clear threat to ones life that a reasonable individual would fear death or grave harm to ones self. 3. Imminence- The attack must be on going. If the attacker is fleeing or the threat has ended then no action can be taken. They may not peruse the attacker. 4. Proportionality- The amount of force used did not exceed the amount of force required to stop the attack. You can't pull a gun out during a fist fight. 5. Avoidance- Every reasonable opportunity was taken to prevent the situation reaching a deadly force situation. The defendant must have retreated if possible to do so safely, instigated the altercation, gotten involved in some ones else's problem, or followed the perceived threat. If they defense can't prove they did 5/5 then they lose their case and are guilty of murder.
That's not how we roll here in the US. "Guilty" and "Not guilty" are based on race, religion, nationality and gender. An example is Trump refusing to return stolen classified documents and threatening "big problems" if he's indicted for those crimes. Anyone else that stole classified documents would not have been given 18 months before the FBI went in and would be in prison. Here's another example. The "thugs" are BLM protestors (fighting against a truth). The "patriots" are Trump supporters (fighting for a lie).
Five common sense approches to gun use and crime. Do innocent people have a lot more problems with armed criminals in Britain than we do in the U.S.?
Isn't perception of a threat too open to individual interpretation. An old woman might legitimately "feel" threatened in a situation where a young man, or even another old woman, would not. Does that feeling justify the use of lethal force?
A 5ft 100lb man chasing an 80yo threatening to "beat her to death" would likely find the woman acted reasonable and the same man saying that to a 6ft 180lb man the 6ft man wouldn't be able to claim such fear because its clear to any reasonable person that deadly force wasn't needed.
So the standard isn't the feeling of the person who felt threatened. The standard is whether, presumably a jury, thinks the feeling was justified.
Not so much justified but reasonable. It's not reasonable for a 20yo 6ft 180lb male to fear for their life against a 5ft 100lb male.
But what if he really does? What if you add some complicating circumstances to the incident? What if the 100lb male had a knife? There's lots of room for ambiguity.
If they have a knife or gun then its reasonable if they are barehanded then its not. Its about the situation and all facts provided, its a very easy point to prove if the person acted in good faith.
It really isn't. Because you can't get in to the head of the person who felt threatened. And the jury may not be able to ascertain the exact circumstances of the incident. Like Zimmerman killing Martin.
Self defense law....Trump...thugs are BLM protestors...what?....huh? Who has a decoder ring? I seem to have misplaced mine.
Zimmerman would have failed avoidance automatically since he followed his "attacker" after calling 911.
This all sounds well and good in theory but there is one major general flaw and a couple of specific practical problems. First, in our system of jurisprudence no one ever has to prove their innocence and that is a fundamental principle of law. Then how does anyone assess if a person reasonably felt his life was in danger. If the attacked truly felt he was in danger of grave bodily harm who can say otherwise. Next why can't I shoot someone who is about to beat me to death? Finally I see no rationale why if some bad gut breaks into your home you have an obligation to flee out the back door.
Self defense until recently was an affirmative defense like insanity, yes I committed an illegal act (killing someone) but I'm not guilty because it was in self defense. You aren't disputing that you intentionally killed someone when you invoke self defense you're arguing that it was justified, which is why in most countries and in some states in the US you have to prove self defense. By looking at the situation objectively, if you're at a bar and some dude half your size unarmed attacks you, it would be unreasonable to think that he was going to kill you. 6'6" 300lb 95% muscle and knows martial arts/professional football player/boxer... then you could argue that you feared for your life, 5'0" 100lb unarmed talking smack "I'll put you to sleep" yet you're 6'0" 180lb and normal fitness good luck claiming you thought your life was at risk. Castle doctrine doesn't get overturned here, the only time it would be murder is if the intruder was running away back turned when shots were fired.
In our current system there is always scrutiny of a person who shot someone claiming self defense. If law enforcement and the DA think the claim is not warranted they can and do prosecute. But they have to prove guilt. The arrestee does not have to prove his innocence and that is a fundamental linchpin difference.
In a murder trial where someone is claiming to be innocent without self defense they are either A saying there wasn't intent to kill, or B that they weren't the person who did it. Self defense says "I did it, and I had the intent of killing them" which is why in british common law which our system is based off of the defense has to prove it (I think Ohio is the only state left that forced the defense to prove they acted in self defense.)
