The question is, was the defendant facing danger that was so pressing that he or she had no reasonable option to repel or avoid it other than to use the force that he or she used.
Research indicates that significant numbers of battered women who kill their spouses do so when they are not facing an immediate attack or threat of immediate attack. Thus, victims of domestic violence may resort to surprise attacks, [51] or they may attack during a lull in the violence against them. This tendency is compounded by the way imminence inter-relates with the other important factor in assessing reasonableness: the lack of alternatives.
Generally, courts have not considered danger to be sufficiently imminent to justify the use of force if the defendant had a reasonable non-violent option for avoiding the immediate danger.
On the night of the homicide the husband threatened to kill the defendant and her sister who lived with them. He then went to bed in an intoxicated state. The defendant tied him up while he was unconscious and then killed him with a knife. She claimed to have acted in self-defence. The trial judge refused to allow self-defence to go to the jury. He said that, as the defendant was in no immediate danger and had alternative courses of action open to her, such as going to the police or seeking the help of her sister and friend who were with her in the house, there was no possibility the jury could have considered her use of lethal force to have been reasonable.
The Court accepted that it might be reasonable to make a pre-emptive strike in some circumstances. New Zealand research shows that the Police and the courts did not or could not always offer effective protection against abusive spouses.
For example, a defendant may not consider leaving home to be a viable option, even though it may afford a short period of immediate relief, if past experience shows that the abuser will be able to find the defendant no matter where he or she runs to.
For such a defendant, running away would only delay the inevitable. Imminence of harm can be a factor to be considered in making judgments of necessity, but it should not be an independent requirement in addition to necessity. If you are forced to kill another person in self-defense, you can avoid criminal charges as long as your actions were justified. The defendant must prove that they were in imminent danger to avoid being charged with manslaughter. The identity and history of the aggressor can also play an important role in a self-defense killing case.
In some states, the defendant must prove that they attempted to flee before being forced to kill the aggressor. Stand-your-ground laws allow people to kill others who unlawfully trespass with malicious intent. Whether or not the aggressor was engaged in criminal activity when the killing took place can also affect the outcome of your case.
Self-defense can be misinterpreted as manslaughter depending on the situation. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when someone is provoked to kill another. You are under no duty to retreat if an intruder comes into your home. Under Penal Code He was so knowledgeable, and always made sure I understood everything every step of the way.
I would definitely recommend him to anyone who wants an understanding, caring, and truly helpful lawyer. It can take time for the facts of a self defense case to come to light. This is how normally law abiding people can find themselves accused of crimes, when all they did was defend themselves or someone else. Even though you were acting within your rights, it is important to work with a skilled defense attorney until the case is closed.
Your attorney will work to safeguard your constitutionally guaranteed rights against aggressive investigators, zealous prosecutors and the hearsay of other people who might have been involved. Hiring an attorney is not an admission of guilt.
0コメント