If a large strong man punches a smaller man is the victim justified in killing his attacker to prevent continued battery?

ANSWER by BipolarAttorney 02/06/08

Boiled down to its most simplistic terms, in order to use deadly force, there must be a reasonably perceived, imminent threat of great bodily harm or death.

The other answers go into more detail - but a couple of issues not raised:

- Generally, if you have the option to flee, the threat is not "imminent." However, if you are in your own residence, you are not required to "flee."

- The complexities raised by the "battered women's syndrome" defense certainly muddies the water when it comes to judging what is reasonably perceived as being imminent.

Answer

In general the laws of all states define "justifiable homicide" as that which occurs in defense of ones life. The murder of someone to prevent the possibility of future assault/physical harm, would not be viewed as a legitimate legal defense. In other words, the party in question would have to be in a situation that could be defined as "life or death."

Answer

If this is a scenario where for example the victim fires shots at the attacker in his defense WHILE the physical battery is ACTUALLY IN PROGRESS but it results in the attackers death.. with how you described X and Y it would very likely be construed as justified self defense.

Remember always that the line between self-defense and involuntary manslaughter is very very very fine.

Upon responding to the scene where such a shooting (or whichever method used) has transpired the police have many specialized methods for determining which direction a person was facing when the mortal blow was given, if they had adaquate physical strength to have carried out a murder, etc..

It must appear that the killing of the other was absolutely neccessary to stop a victim from being killed or suffering great bodily harm. If it dosen't, then somewhere along the line you may be looking at either misdemeanor or felony manslaughter charges (depending on where you live).

To put it in a nutshell, if defense is excercised while the attack is actually in progress it will likely be understood and deemed warranted. If it was merely a measure hours and hours after a domestic assault to prevent another one, then while the assailant may have deseved it legally it constitutes FIRST DEGREE MURDER.

I'm sure anyone cruel enough to assault someone that much smaller than them isn't worth going away for, obviously. Good luck and BE SAFE!

Answer

In self-defense, a weapon is always used to STOP the attack. You never shoot to KILL--you shoot to STOP.

When the attacker dies as a result of self-defense actions, physical disparity plays an important role: Men typically receive less lenancy than women in cases of physical attack.

Answer

The rule is that a person may use the force reasonably necessary to protect himself from attack. If a person REASONABLY BELIEVES that the attacker is about to cause him "great bodily harm or death" he is justified in using "deadly force" to protect himself.

Thus, the above answer that said "It must appear that the killing of the other was absolutely neccessary to stop a victim from being killed or suffering great bodily harm" is wrong. That is backwards. It must appear that it was reasonable for the victim to believe the attacker was about to cause great bodily harm or death that the victim could not escape (e.g. run from). Even if the attacker couldn't cause great bodily harm, the test is whether it was reasonable for the victim to believe he could under the circumstances and in the limited time he had to made the determination. I agree that it cannot be later, the threat must be imminent.

Neither is there a requirement that a victim should have the peace of mind to make a "stop shot." If deadly force is legally justified, you can use it. I'm 260 pounds and if I were attacking a small guy at close range, he'd better kill me with the first shot.

Of course, there are always exceptions and variations in each state. In Texas, under state law, if the repo man is reposessing your car at your home at night, you can shoot him dead as long as he is on your property when you shoot him (e.g. in your driveway).

In Montana, if you have your property in the hills posted no trespassing and you shoot a trespasser dead for being on your property without even checking to see if he is a lost teenager (he was shot from the front porch and was too far away to know who he was), the grand jury will not indict you for murder. To be fair, the person turned out to have a criminal record.

In Washington State to assert the self-defense defense it is necessary to show that the attacker was physically able to cause the defender grievous bodily injury, that the attacker was in position to cause grievous bodily injury and that the attacker was in the process of causing grievous bodily injury. So if the attacker is larger and across the street with a baseball bat saying he is going to kill the defender that doesn't qualify. If no the other hand he is running towards the attacker and is within range of the baseball bat then the defender has a self defense claim. The police investigating the altercation have a tendency to be more sympatric to the most injured participant.

• Special laws relating to housing for senior citizens?
• Can you put a lien on one's nursing licence until a money judgment againt them is paid?
• What Does rental insurance cover?