self defense when there are no witnesses

No they don't.

It is just that law enforcement is much more reluctant to act if the suspect appears that they could be another law enforcement officer. Criminals could, and have, used that to their advantage.

The suspect they are approaching could be an off-duty police officer. If they approached an on-duty police officer the same way they routinely approach civilians, there's a good chance someone would end up getting shot, or worse.

 

I totally disagree. Cops know the risks other officers take doing the job.

 

As a teen, I was trained by moronic rules of engagement in the Army.
Halt---Who is there?
(still coming at you)
Halt!
(still coming at you)
Raise up your gun---Halt!
(still coming at you)
Fire a warning shot in air
(still coming at you)
Finally, shoot the person if not already long dead or the suicide truck hasn't blown up your barracks.

I have moved on past this idiocy. You can size someone up in 2 tens of a second, are they cute, are they tougher than you, are they a threat?

If the two people in your senario were coming at me, and I drew my gun and yelled at them to stop, and they didn't instantly stop or identify themselves----then I'd unload on them.

 

We really need to address the fact that forensic and circumstantial evidence almost always exists and that the testimony of the accused is always suspect.

 

This thread sounds Italian, I thought American Justice System was well more direct and clear than this ...

Even in Italy that guy would see self defense recognized [with the possibility to be accused of "excess of self defense" which is a crime in Italy].

The base point is simple: it's the prosecutor to have the duty to prove that it was not self defense, if the state lawyer is not able to prove it ... it was self defense. Then, in some countries like Italy, there is a possibility of an accusation of "excess of self defense", but I ignore if in US there is such a crime.

 

Forensic evidence cannot always clarify exactly what happened, and you are avoiding the main issue in the story. Just suppose all the evidence appears to be reasonably consistent with what the suspect said, but neither does it prove whether it was justifiable self defense.

That is a good concept, "excess of self defense". When the shooters actions were partially justified, but not entirely. Not every country has a law like that.

Yes, unfortunately the American justice system does tend to be pretty Black and White, at least from what I have read on this forum. Apparently it's hard for people to comprehend that a defendant might not be entirely all guilty or all innocent, or that they should be punished less if substantial doubt exists as to the guilt. Even the judges during sentencing tend to act as if a 'guilty' verdict from the jury means they should punish the defendant as if they were clearly and entirely guilty of the crime they were accused of. You brought up a very good point.

 

Absolutely, the conceptualization of "excess of self defense" can be difficult to grasp at first sight, anyway the principal is quite simple: self defense has to be comparable to the threat.

* Someone wants to kill you [and it's clear that the aggressor has got the possibility to kill you], if you are not a trained "operator" able to wound him to make him armless ... you are justified to use all the force available, up to kill him.

* Someone is attacking you using a knife and you've got a handgun? In this case theoretically [then it will be the trial to discuss the circumstances] you could have time to aim to a leg, just wounding him, to stop his action. Theoretically ... it needs a trial to delimit the "excess" of self defense, case by case.

 

If you shoot with the intent to wound, your prosecution will say that your life was not in danger. You shoot to stop the threat center of mass because that is your best chance at not missing your target. A miss can harm others and put you in a world of hurt and land you in prison or sued heavily.

 

I had to get off my phone, so to continue:

You do have the option of threatening deadly force by drawing and threatening to use your gun, but there are risks there. I may threaten deadly force without using it, but I would never shoot to wound. That's asking for trouble. If the guy with a knife doesn't get you, the courts will.

 

In Italy it's a bit different. It depends: if you served in the army, for example, there is the presumption that you are able to proportionate your action to the threat.

 

Wealthy and important people can afford to hire security guards and bodyguards for their self defense. The security guard can use deadly force and the one hiring them does not have to worry about facing legal repercussions. That's probably why many political leaders have such little regard for the individual natural right of self defense. It's really like another form of economic inequality and unfairness in the law.

 

I agree on the first part. I disagree on the second. A knife is still a deadly weapon. Just because the attacker is stupid enough to bring a knife to a gunfight, doesn't mean that I have to put my gun up, and defend myself with a knife. That said, there is a difference between defending yourself with a gun against a person 50 feet away with a knife or with a gun. At 50 feet away, the person with a knife isn't an immediate danger, so IMHO, it wouldn't be acceptable to kill him. If that same person is 10 feet away with a knife, it would be, as he is then a danger to the gun wielder. At 50 feet away the person with a gun is an immediate danger, so shooting them would be acceptable. It's all a matter of how dangerous the person is, to determine if self defense is justified.

 

It's clear that it's the trial to have to evaluate the single case ... generally a considered factor is the intrinsic potential danger represented by the weaponry handled by the aggressor [generally, then circumstances can vary a lot].

 

I have to agree with Alpin Luke - in most places the response to threat must be proportional to the threat so it would not be considered self defence here - especially since the others were killed and not simply disabled. But this is where these cases would automatically referred to court

 

So the assumption is that the prosecution, except for speculation, doesn't have much case against the accused?

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and if the forensic and circumstantial evidence does not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that murder occurred then the jury would find the man not guilty. This in no way establishes that the accused was telling the truth and, as noted, it would be very unlikely the jury would even hear the story of the accused because the defense would not put them on the stand to testify.

There is no necessity for the accused to establish they acted in self-defense. The necessity is for the prosecution to establish it was murder. A person does not have to prove they're innocent in our criminal justice system. Let me provide a couple of examples.

We don't know if Officer Wilson murdered Michael Brown. We do know he wasn't prosecuted so the evidence was never presented before a criminal jury that could return a verdict.
We don't know if George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. We do know the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

Our criminal justice system was established to protect the innocent even when that results in the guilty not being prosecuted or convicted. Many American wrongfully believe that criminal justice in America is about convicting the guilty but that has never been it's purpose. It's purpose has always been about protecting the innocent from wrongful conviction and, in that regard, it often fails because we forget that is it's true purpose and focus on conviction instead.

 

The response to the threat is proportional. Deadly weapon against deadly weapon. There is no legal standard under which some deadly weapons are deadlier than others.

 

That is why it goes to court to decide if the response was proportional

 

You are aware that any such case going to court will involve the prosecutor seeking an extremely high bail amount for the defendant, correct? Even if charges cannot be sustained at trial, that amount must still be paid, and the defendant is never reimbursed even if they are found not guilty.

 

I teach firearm self defense. There are certain universal standards that are taught by professionals in the US in accordance with the local statutes.
There is not, and never has been a standard of self defense that requires a victim to defend themselves by shooting to wound only. You shoot to stop the threat. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Either the threat is great enough to justify the use of lethal force, or it isn't. There is no grey area according to the law. After being lucky enough to land a shot in the leg or arm, you tell police that you only shot to wound the person, the prosecutor will believe that you must not have believed that your life was in imminent danger, therefore you will find yourself in court. I know of cases that this has happened.

 

It's not said that military standards are adopted by the legislator to state legal standards ... and this is different from a country to an other.

In Italy it's better to wound than to kill. I remember a recent case of a shopkeeper killing a robber [so a person who entered the shop with evident intentions to do something wrong, so a clear threat] and facing a trial risking a condemnation because of excess of self defense.

 

It may be much more preferable to shoot the attacker in the leg or arm. This is not always possible, and creates additional danger to the person acting in self defense. However, there may be certain situations that would make the defender extremely reluctant to want to risk killing the attacker. Just one example, imagine there a criminal going around shooting people who is disguised as a police officer. Someone attempts to stop them and check their identification, but cannot be entirely sure it is actually the criminal.

If there is something to take cover behind, the one acting in self defense could just fire a disabling shot, and then take cover. Just because someone is an armed criminal does not necessarily mean they deserve to be killed, although I agree it would be somewhat of an act of self-sacrifice on the part of the shooter since they are taking on additional risk to themselves by not more thoroughly "incapacitating" the criminal. It's just another option to bring up. Self defense doesn't always have to involve inflicting mortal injury.

 

Shooting to wound is something you may see on TV. With adrenaline running high, your fine motor skills are inhibited. Accurate marksmanship with a handgun is challenging enough when just practicing, much less in a life and death situation.
In a self defense situation, things happen in the blink of an eye. Many aggressors have not been stopped by good hits the the chest area and torso. It doesn't happen like in the movies where when one gets shot they fall to the ground and instantly die. Generally a death from a gunshot wound happens when the person bleeds out. This can take several minutes. Unless the perp gets scared and runs off after being wounded, you have not stopped the threat and you are still in danger especially if the criminal has a gun. In a court of law, you will be looked at as using deadly force, no matter where your bullet lands.
Like I said, firearm self defense professionals teach students to shoot to stop the threat. That may or may not mean the aggressor dies.

 

I have heard of no self defense expert that would ever recommend shooting in the arm or leg. The recommendation is to shoot for center mass(i..e in the center of the torso). This reduces the chance of hurting anybody besides the predator, as it's the biggest target, and easiest to consistently hit. If you ever have need to shoot somebody, you should shoot to stop them, not just to wound them.

 

The nation of Italy is not the same thing as the nation of the united states. In the united states, unless there are specific laws in the jurisdiction in which the defensive use of deadly force took place, the criminal can actually sue the person who engaged in self defense if they survive the encounter. Not only can a suit be filed with the court, but the courts will also take it quite seriously as if it possessed a legitimate merit.

That is one of the primary driving forces behind castle doctrine and stand your ground statutes.

 

Watch this video and tell me if any of these people had the ability and the chance to shoot to wound only. These are typical self defense shootings..... Fast.

[video=youtube_share;6AL_jboGg2M]http://youtu.be/6AL_jboGg2M[/video]

I think you are getting your ideas of self defense shootings from TV shows.