Return to “Alaskan homeowner kills two trespassers, charged with murder”
Most likely. No matter how sure you are you're in the right in a self defense shooting other than a very brief statement such as, " I had no choice, he/they were going to kill me to establish your claim of self defense followed by, "I will be happy to cooperate fully after speaking with my attorney" you should keep your mouth shut.
As I said, my only issue here is with the first degree murder charge. Some form of manslaughter might be more appropriate.KLB wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:02 pmYes, but actually shooting someone without a threat of IMMINENT serious bodily injury or death courts a criminal charge--and conviction. It's the same principle that criminalizes an abused woman killing her boyfriend when he's not violent, taking him by surprise. She commits a crime, because he isn't trying to hurt her at the moment--just as it appears the defendant here apparently committed a crime.
The DA is being way over zealous here and overcharged the man probably to make a political statement.KLB wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:12 pm Andrew Branca reports:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/l ... th-murder/The news reports that a homeowner confronted two trespassers. The homeowner was threatened with death by one of them as the two trespassers sat in a car. The homeowner shot and killed the man who threatened him, then emptied his pistol into the second man who lunged towards the rear of the vehicle, killing him, as well. The homeowner then called 911, reported what happened, and waited by the end of the driveway for the police to arrive.
The result: the homeowner has been arrested and charged with two counts of murder.
So, how does a homeowner end up charged with two counts of first-degree murder on these facts?
Violating the Element of Imminence
Well, the homeowner violated one of the required elements of a claim of self-defense, the element of imminence. The element of imminence essentially holds that in order for your use of defensive force to be lawful, it must be force necessary to stop an imminent harm to you. That is, the harm you are defending yourself against must either be actually happening, be in progress, or be about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to draw my pistol and shoot you,” as the speaker reaches for his holstered pistol.
Conversely, a threat of future harm is insufficient to justify a use of deadly defensive force, if by future harm we mean some prospective future event that is not about to happen right now. Example: “I’m going to go home, get a gun, come back here, and shoot you.” For this kind of future, prospective threat that may or may not ever actually happen, the law expects you to pursue other options rather than an immediate use of defensive force. Call the police, seek the assistance of others, leave the area, etc.
The evidence on the issue of imminence is often subjective and ambiguous—was the bad guy drawing back his fist in preparation to strike, was he moving his hand to his waistline in preparation for presenting a weapon. Sometimes, however, the evidence is crystal clear—and particularly so when it comes right from the “defender’s” own mouth.
In this particular case when asked by police why he shot the first trespasser, the homeowner himself gave up the element of imminence. As reported in the news story linked above:
When asked if there was something specific that caused Chandler to draw his gun, he told troopers it was when Marx said he would kill him “eventually.”
“Eventually” does not mean “right now” and does not qualify as a sufficiently imminent threat as to justify an immediate use of defensive force—and especially not deadly force that snuffs out two human lives.
With imminence lost, so is lost any legal justification for the use of deadly force in killing the two trespassers, and thus the homeowner is facing two charges of first-degree murder.