Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

[The Mark]

Several events over the past year or so lead me to this question.

Is fear of harm/death caused by another sufficient reason to kill them?

Regardless of what the current law is, where do we draw the line between a person claiming a threat of attack/death by another person as a justification for killing that person, and allowing a person in such a situation to defend themselves from harm or death using lethal force?

In some cases, the current laws seem to allow a person who for one reason or another (poor preparation, misunderstanding of situation, nervousness, etc.) thought they were going to be attacked or killed - to kill another person and face no significant consequences.
In other cases, the same laws may allow a person who is actually being threatened and in danger of death to defend themselves by killing the person who was going to kill them.



Yet there seems to be a worrying trend of higher profile events wherein police officers shoot an unarmed person, or a person who is not threatening them, due to claimed fear for their life. Whether this actually was the case, or they're just claiming it to save themselves from prison time, it seems we need to prevent such things. If at all possible.

But how?

More and better training for police?
Stricter internal controls to remove unfit officers from the police force?
Higher pay to attract and retain the best possible officers?
All of the above?


Either way, the original question which prompted me to write this, in poll form:

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Several events over the past year or so lead me to this question.

Is fear of harm/death caused by another sufficient reason to kill them?

Regardless of what the current law is, where do we draw the line between a person claiming a threat of attack/death by another person as a justification for killing that person, and allowing a person in such a situation to defend themselves from harm or death using lethal force?

In some cases, the current laws seem to allow a person who for one reason or another (poor preparation, misunderstanding of situation, nervousness, etc.) thought they were going to be attacked or killed - to kill another person and face no significant consequences.
In other cases, the same laws may allow a person who is actually being threatened and in danger of death to defend themselves by killing the person who was going to kill them.



Yet there seems to be a worrying trend of higher profile events wherein police officers shoot an unarmed person, or a person who is not threatening them, due to claimed fear for their life. Whether this actually was the case, or they're just claiming it to save themselves from prison time, it seems we need to prevent such things. If at all possible.

But how?

More and better training for police?
Stricter internal controls to remove unfit officers from the police force?
Higher pay to attract and retain the best possible officers?
All of the above?


Either way, the original question which prompted me to write this, in poll form:

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

There is a difference between a common citizen and a police officer when it comes to the use of deadly force.

A citizen faces immediate prosecution for the killing of another citizen unless the investigation shows it was truly self-defense. It is a strict liability situation.

A police office, on the other hand, is granted the power to use deadly force in the enforcement of the law. It is limited liability in that absent clear evidence of misconduct, the presumption is the officer was acting in the line of duty.

As I pointed out in another thread, people need to remember that police work entails constant contact on a daily basis with citizens of various attitudes and levels of threat. That whenever a police officer arrives on scene to survey an issue, it can turn deadly.

However, if the shooting investigation finds cause, then the officer faces criminal prosecution.

 

[cuban smokes]

if in my life I would have utilized the justification that LE typically claims for the use of deadly force there would be quite a few dead son a bitches trailing way behind me BUT just imagine, I have yet to kill a single threat ........... imagine that ............ and what does that say about LE?

 

[MaggieD]

Several events over the past year or so lead me to this question.

Is fear of harm/death caused by another sufficient reason to kill them?

Regardless of what the current law is, where do we draw the line between a person claiming a threat of attack/death by another person as a justification for killing that person, and allowing a person in such a situation to defend themselves from harm or death using lethal force?

In some cases, the current laws seem to allow a person who for one reason or another (poor preparation, misunderstanding of situation, nervousness, etc.) thought they were going to be attacked or killed - to kill another person and face no significant consequences.
In other cases, the same laws may allow a person who is actually being threatened and in danger of death to defend themselves by killing the person who was going to kill them.



Yet there seems to be a worrying trend of higher profile events wherein police officers shoot an unarmed person, or a person who is not threatening them, due to claimed fear for their life. Whether this actually was the case, or they're just claiming it to save themselves from prison time, it seems we need to prevent such things. If at all possible.

But how?

More and better training for police?
Stricter internal controls to remove unfit officers from the police force?
Higher pay to attract and retain the best possible officers?
All of the above?


Either way, the original question which prompted me to write this, in poll form:

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

In the heat of the moment when a split second decision must be made while standing toe to toe, most of the time being afraid for one's life would be enough to justify deadly force. Once the perceived threat is neutralized, however, keep shooting (as an example) and one runs the risk of being successfully prosecuted for murder or some other very serious charge.

Then, of course, one must assume that the District attorney would agree that your "fear for your life" was a reasonable conclusion to draw from the circumstances at hand.

 

[RetiredUSN]

if in my life I would have utilized the justification that LE typically claims for the use of deadly force there would be quite a few dead son a bitches trailing way behind me BUT just imagine, I have yet to kill a single threat ........... imagine that ............ and what does that say about LE?

You must be a real bad ass?

LE typically claims?........................give us a freaking break!

 

[The Mark]

There is a difference between a common citizen and a police officer when it comes to the use of deadly force.

A citizen faces immediate prosecution for the killing of another citizen unless the investigation shows it was truly self-defense. It is a strict liability situation.

A police office, on the other hand, is granted the power to use deadly force in the enforcement of the law. It is limited liability in that absent clear evidence of misconduct, the presumption is the officer was acting in the line of duty.

As I pointed out in another thread, people need to remember that police work entails constant contact on a daily basis with citizens of various attitudes and levels of threat. That whenever a police officer arrives on scene to survey an issue, it can turn deadly.

However, if the shooting investigation finds cause, then the officer faces criminal prosecution.

I grant your points.

However, I've lately been wondering if allowing police officers the "I feared for my life" defense goes too far.
I have a feeling it is being abused and misused in some cases, and that worries me. Especially if it means now or in the past, people have been killed unjustly and no consequences have resulted.


Edit: It strikes me that in today's world, it might be reasonable for a police officer to ALWAYS be afraid for their life, at all times while on duty. So how do you then define the point where it changes from a general and healthy sense of fear and danger to "time to shoot"?

And how do you prevent officers unfit to make that judgement from being placed in a position where they have to?

 

[Captain Adverse]

if in my life I would have utilized the justification that LE typically claims for the use of deadly force there would be quite a few dead son a bitches trailing way behind me BUT just imagine, I have yet to kill a single threat ........... imagine that ............ and what does that say about LE?

Are you a police officer? If not, how many times each and every day are you directly involved with dealing with criminal investigations that may result in sudden violence? :roll:

Claiming that you, a civilian going about his normal business day without resort to force, deadly or otherwise, is equivalent to that of a police officer who daily faces the possibility of such danger is ridiculous.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

My opinion on this is one that has not changed much over the course of my life. I believe that everyone has the right to use force, extending to lethal force, to defend their lives, the lives of family, friends and even 'innocent' bystanders. However, they should always be able to defend that decision in a court of law. That's what differentiates homicide and murder from justifiable homicide.

I hope I never have to make that choice.

 

[sookster]

It's in the nature of the law that this can be abused, and it obviously has been across the country. It's a get out of jail free card especially if the officer is the only one alive. And it isn't just officers, it's judges too.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I grant your points.

However, I've lately been wondering if allowing police officers the "I feared for my life" defense goes too far.
I have a feeling it is being abused and misused in some cases, and that worries me. Especially if it means now or in the past, people have been killed unjustly and no consequences have resulted.


Edit: It strikes me that in today's world, it might be reasonable for a police officer to ALWAYS be afraid for their life, at all times while on duty. So how do you then define the point where it changes from a general and healthy sense of fear and danger to "time to shoot"?

And how do you prevent officers unfit to make that judgement from being placed in a position where they have to?

This is not unreasonable. Hence many cities have civilian oversight commissions for police investigations, and most departments that are large enough also have Internal Affairs Divisions which conduct investigations.

Then we have the wonders of instant video via dash, body, or citizen held cameras.

Officers have and will continue to be held to account based on the clear evidence of such videos, and I am a firm supporter of the right to video public acts of police officers.

P.S. I forgot to answer the poll question directly.

My answer is "other" because simple fear, if it is unreasonable, is not sufficient justification to kill. IMO there should be some evidence that a reasonable person of average intelligence faced with similar circumstances would also fear their life was in danger.

 

[cuban smokes]

You must be a real bad ass?

LE typically claims?........................give us a freaking break!

many years ago when I lived in Dallas, Texas I met a former sheriff from Arkansas. We met by chance & she was quite an impressive person.
She relayed a story to me of how she came to the conclusion of her LE career.
She told me how she shot a suspect one day, a suspect that was a potential lethal threat to her.
What did she do when confronted by this, "lethal threat?"
She shot the perp .................... in the knee :shock: .............. so, he could no longer advance toward her.

She went on to explain that the threat was no longer a threat because of her actions; actions that did NOT involve killing the suspect.
Don't get me wrong; she was fully within her training & duty to utilize deadly force upon the suspect but she did not.
She saved the guys life by shooting him in the knee, even while potentially risking her own life.

She also went on to explain how at EVERY level within the department she never heard the end of the story when it came to her NOT shooting to kill the suspect.
After she wounded the suspect, stopped his advances, and stopped the threat, EVERYONE within her department over a period of time continued to harass her, and attempted to convince her that she did the WRONG thing by wounding the suspect.
Everyone told her she was supposed to KILL the suspect, that her duty was to KILL the suspect, and that she had FAILED in her duty to kill the suspect.

After some time of enduring this from everyone within her department she finally resigned, and she left LE for good.

She also told me that basically everyone that had harassed here told her basically the same thing but a different thing.
She said everyone told her, "you shoot to kill BECAUSE a dead suspect won't testify in court."

This was over 30 years ago; what an eye opening insight & introduction to the mindset of the LE community ..................

 

[TurtleDude]

There is a difference between a common citizen and a police officer when it comes to the use of deadly force.

A citizen faces immediate prosecution for the killing of another citizen unless the investigation shows it was truly self-defense. It is a strict liability situation.

A police office, on the other hand, is granted the power to use deadly force in the enforcement of the law. It is limited liability in that absent clear evidence of misconduct, the presumption is the officer was acting in the line of duty.

As I pointed out in another thread, people need to remember that police work entails constant contact on a daily basis with citizens of various attitudes and levels of threat. That whenever a police officer arrives on scene to survey an issue, it can turn deadly.

However, if the shooting investigation finds cause, then the officer faces criminal prosecution.

generally yes though in both cases-private citizen or civilian cop both require that the shooter demonstrate a REASONABLE belief that they have to shoot to stop an imminent threat of severe bodily harm to an innocent person (be it the shooter or another citizen)

 

[cuban smokes]

Are you a police officer? If not, how many times each and every day are you directly involved with dealing with criminal investigations that may result in sudden violence? :roll:

Claiming that you, a civilian going about his normal business day without resort to force, deadly or otherwise, is equivalent to that of a police officer who daily faces the possibility of such danger is ridiculous.

no, I am not LEO; never have been.
I did brandish a weapon once (a felony at the time in Texas) when I was with a group of people, including my then girlfriend.
I won't go into details but the situation was getting pretty intense; if it would have been just me & not the group of friends I would have never grabbed the Dan Wesson .357 for the dog & pony show but it worked.
I have been in multiple situations in which I felt my life was in imminent peril but I kept my cool, and now I'm a 56 year old with a little extra weight, gray side burns, no criminal record, and no blood on my hands.

As a side note: my current duty side arm is a CZ-75 SP-01 tactical w/threaded barrel (suppressor ready) and I keep that with me 24/7 in my home.
I have had some serious threats within the past few months but I aint 23 years old any more :mrgreen:
IF a threat comes into my home & I have anything to do about it, someone is gonna end up very ****ing bloody & I fully intend for that person NOT to be me.

 

[radcen]

I answered yes, but took the question strictly at face value. Said fear would have to be real and legitimate.

 

[The Mark]

I answered yes, but took the question strictly at face value. Said fear would have to be real and legitimate.

I suppose a better question might be:

"How do we determine whether someone was legitimately in fear for their life?"

 

[radcen]

I suppose a better question might be:

"How do we determine whether someone was legitimately in fear for their life?"

I'm not sure that can be answered. It would require mind reading. I am not convinced by the standard, "I feared for my life", without specifics, though.

 

[Lutherf]

Several events over the past year or so lead me to this question.

Is fear of harm/death caused by another sufficient reason to kill them?

Regardless of what the current law is, where do we draw the line between a person claiming a threat of attack/death by another person as a justification for killing that person, and allowing a person in such a situation to defend themselves from harm or death using lethal force?

In some cases, the current laws seem to allow a person who for one reason or another (poor preparation, misunderstanding of situation, nervousness, etc.) thought they were going to be attacked or killed - to kill another person and face no significant consequences.
In other cases, the same laws may allow a person who is actually being threatened and in danger of death to defend themselves by killing the person who was going to kill them.



Yet there seems to be a worrying trend of higher profile events wherein police officers shoot an unarmed person, or a person who is not threatening them, due to claimed fear for their life. Whether this actually was the case, or they're just claiming it to save themselves from prison time, it seems we need to prevent such things. If at all possible.

But how?

More and better training for police?
Stricter internal controls to remove unfit officers from the police force?
Higher pay to attract and retain the best possible officers?
All of the above?


Either way, the original question which prompted me to write this, in poll form:

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

Why do people always leave out the "reasonable" and "imminent" parts?

The use of deadly force for the purpose of self defense is only justifiable when there is a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to stop the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. If you say "I was scared so I shot him" that's great but why were you scared? What was going on that lead you to believe that if you didn't use deadly force right then you were going to end up dead yourself?

 

[shrubnose]

Only if your fears were justified.

 

[The Mark]

Why do people always leave out the "reasonable" and "imminent" parts?

The use of deadly force for the purpose of self defense is only justifiable when there is a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to stop the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. If you say "I was scared so I shot him" that's great but why were you scared? What was going on that lead you to believe that if you didn't use deadly force right then you were going to end up dead yourself?

If, legally, a reasonable and imminent threat to a police officer allows them kill someone, we clearly have to have better training for our police officers.

Since, on multiple occasions people who were in no way a threat or in any way could harm them have been killed by them.

 

[Lutherf]

If, legally, a reasonable and imminent threat to a police officer allows them kill someone, we clearly have to have better training for our police officers.

Since, on multiple occasions people who were in no way a threat or in any way could harm them have been killed by them.

In the vast majority of those cases the cop ends up in jail...just like anyone else.

 

[The Mark]

In the vast majority of those cases the cop ends up in jail...just like anyone else.

But training might weed out problems and prevent people from being killed by those charged to protect them.

 

[Lutherf]

But training might weed out problems and prevent people from being killed by those charged to protect them.

Understanding the jobs cops have to do might help too. In many of the questionable shootings we see the victims do a number of things that lead to the shooting.

 

[HK.227]

It depends, obviously.

To take it ad absurdum, a known terrorist pointing a bazooka at you and saying they are going to kill you should be reasonable cause for making you fear for your life, and by extension for neutralizing them first, even if it means the use of deadly force.
On the other hand, being paranoid does not excuse gunning down random strangers when they didn't even look at you funny.

Justification, in my mind, is achieved by the threat seeming credible to a reasonable individual at the time of the incident. As determined by a Pater Familias, Jury of your Peers, or whatever you wish to call it, without the assumption of perfect hindsight.

And as a tangent, I believe that people who enforce the law for you and me should operate under the same rules as we do. A police officer is not James Bond, Rambo, or the Gestapo. He or she is a regular person, a simple citizen, who happens to have been hired to spend their time actively enforcing laws regarding normal, everyday matters on behalf of the community. Laws that are (or should be) the same for everyone. Any difference in the standards they are held to (for better or worse) should be based on the fact that it is a profession for them. Not special legal privileges or immunities.

 

[devildavid]

Does being more fearful in general give a person more of a justification to kill a person than those who are less fearful?

 

[eohrnberger]

I voted other because just being 'afraid for your life' isn't the same as your life actually being threatened, which needs to be the legal standard of such.