Home defense

[JohnKSa]

How would you prove intent.

As a defender, you don't have to prove intent, you just have to show that there's sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would assume that they are in imminent/immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured.

In some cases, the law lays out a set of circumstances and says that if those circumstances are met, you can assume you're in danger of serious injury or death.

If you can prove that a person has means, motive and opportunity to kill you or cause you serious injury that's a good way to establish that you acted reasonably (legally) by using deadly force in your defense.

Means: Is able to cause serious injury or death. Perhaps with a weapon or maybe due to an obvious and significant disparity in physical strength.

Motive: Has some reason to seriously injure or kill you. e.g. Wants something you have and has made it clear that he will use deadly force to make you give it up.

Opportunity: Can actually make it happen right now. Someone who calls you on the phone from another state doesn't have opportunity even if they have a knife and the strong desire to kill you. The knife won't reach from there.

[Metal god]

You don't prove intent. You can't prove intent because you can't read the mind of another person. What you might need to convincingly show it that the observed acts of another person would cause a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that person had a particular intent. One's intent must be inferred from his manifest conduct.

So if you approach me with a snarl on your face and holding an upraised crowbar, I can argue that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that you intended to hit me with the crowbar.

I agree 100% I just don't understand why some don't see it that way .

As a defender, you don't have to prove intent, you just have to show that there's sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would assume that they are in imminent/immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured.

So I've been thinking about this . I think I may understand where my confusion came from . I'm really not confused on the general issue but more to the specifics . As the victim/defender you don't need to prove intent . How ever in a court of law the DA does ?? Is that right ? Is that why you can have opposing views on the incident and them both be reasonably accurate ? I as the victim believed the bad guy intended to inflict great bodily harm so I was with in my right to repel with force . How ever The DA to convict would need to prove the bad guy intended to kill or gravely injure ???? Assuming the charge was murder or attempted murder ?

[JohnKSa]

As the victim/defender you don't need to prove intent.

You don't have to "PROVE" it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but a successful defense will need to at least demonstrate that your assumption of the attacker's intent was reasonable.

I as the victim believed the bad guy intended to inflict great bodily harm so I was with in my right to repel with force.

Close. It's necessary that the jury feels that your belief was reasonable when they put themselves in your shoes.

For example, the honestly held belief that any and all red-haired persons wearing green shirts intend to kill you won't exonerate you if you shoot a redhead with a green shirt. The jury won't feel that is a reasonable thing to believe.

If you shoot a small, weak, wheelchair-bound, person armed with a tack hammer who is legitimately doing his/her level best to kill you, the jury probably won't feel that your belief that deadly force was necessary was reasonable. They will likely believe that you could have easily avoided the attack without resorting to deadly force.

How ever The DA to convict would need to prove the bad guy intended to kill or gravely injure ????

Depends on what charge he's trying to support. Some charges require intent to be proved, some don't.

If the DA is trying to prove premeditated murder then intent is certainly part of the equation. That's hard and that is why it's not uncommon to see lesser charges brought even when there may not be a lot of doubt that the murder was premeditated.

[leadcounsel]

Disclaimer: I am a former prosecutor and current defense trial lawyer. I have defended clients raising self defense. I have observed and studied cases where self defense is raised, beginning when I was about 20 years old when I completed an internship in the Philadelphia District Attorney's office in the homicide unit. I've worked in extremely busy prosecution and defense offices for much of my legal career, including a lot of assault, aggravated assault, and homicide cases. I've been studying, observing, and trying these types of cases now for over 20 years, & am an licensed in 3 jurisdictions.

Regarding the conversation of proving the intent of the attacker, here's how this plays out in a criminal investigation and really if it goes to trial.

The prosecutor will review an investigation and discuss it with the detectives, as to who was the aggressor, was this self-defense or homicide, and make a determination based on probable cause whether it was homicide that would not likely be self-defense, or go beyond self-defense to homicide (e.g. shooting someone once they are no longer a threat). This glosses over the grand jury which varies dramatically across jurisdictions - in essence it's a panel or individual that does a probable cause or preponderance of evidence determination (these are largely one-sided reviews of just enough evidence by the prosecution to head to trial and are not really very balanced).

If it goes to trial, the defendant is charged with XYZ crime such as homicide (1st, 2nd murder, negligent manslaughter, whatever is in the jurisdiction). The prosecution will put on evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim. The defendant can sit silently and hope that the evidence is not sufficient, and that is the defendant's 5th and 6th amendment rights at play. He may also try to raise self defense, but that requires some affirmative actions and evidence/witnesses.

The defense may raise an affirmative defense, what we generally consider "self-defense." It may be what we call a "burden shift" for the defense to offer some proof or a preponderance of evidence to be entitled to that instruction to the jury. Or it may be in some jurisdictions that, once raised, the prosecution must overcome the burden. In essence, was the murder/homicide justifiable.

At the end of the trial, what will occur is that the jury (or panel in the military) will hear instructions from the judge on the law of murder and self defense, and make a decision 1) whether the facts demonstrate murder/homicide by the defendant and if so, 2) whether it was justifiable as self defense.

So, a defendant "sort of" must show some evidence of self-defense because that's an affirmative defense and the prosecution is unlikely to show that evidence.

Edited: If it's not obvious, jurisdictions and facts vary and this is extremely generic legal information. Always consult with your lawyer on the facts/laws in your state.

[Skans]

Referring to the OP's post, emptying a magazine of 15 rounds into someone who fell on the floor after the first one or two rounds is just plain gross. I really don't know how else to say it? If someone is shot, on the floor and is no longer trying to hurt anyone STOP SHOOTING!!! No law, legal defense or jury is going to give anyone a license to execute (or mutilate!) a defenseless human.

[44 AMP]

emptying a magazine of 15 rounds into someone who fell on the floor after the first one or two rounds is....

VERY dependent on the situation.

DOWN is not automatically OUT of the fight. Much of the time, yes, it is, and that's the way we talk about it in general conversation, BUT as long as the attacker has access to / control of a weapon, they are still a THREAT.

there are standing jokes about it, most with stereotypes, but actually based on real incidents, and how we perceive them.

Classic comedy skit, bad guy is shot down, defender gives gun to wife/clerk, "cover him, if he moves, shoot him! I'm calling the cops" Husband/storemanager goes for a phone, there is a series of shots (slightly spaced) he rushes back, is met with "he moved! so I shot him, and he moved again, so I...."

Another stereotypical image is the cops closely questioning the guy for emptying the gun, while a distraught woman can be standing over the body still pulling the trigger on an empty gun when the cops get there, and they give her an automatic "pass". Often includes a line like "sorry Mrs Smith, we were fine with it being self defense, UNTIL you emptied the SECOND CLIP!...."

A tank with a broken tread doesn't move well, but the guns still shoot.

An attacker can go down, and still be a threat. "Reasonable" to me means when the attacker goes down, you check fire, and assess. You MAY have to shoot again, you may not.

At this point, it is VERY, very dependent on the exact situation, and self defense can turn into assault or murder with a single unjustified shot.

And remember, its the "reasonable" jurors who decide justification, well AFTER the fact. They may decide that you should have run away, rather than shoot, or they may decide something else. They have limitless time to consider decisions you had to make in fractions of a second.

Basically if the bad guy is down, does not visibly have a (ranged) weapon, cannot chase you, he's no longer an immediate threat, and you will NOT be approved putting more rounds in him.

Despite the very human, and understandable desire to keep shooting, and end the threat, permanently, the law does NOT allow you to do that, and still claim self defense. Remember that what something IS, and what it can be made to look like to a jury can be quite different things.

Suppose you've got your hi cap wonder9, you have to shoot, fire several shots, bad guy goes down, still has gun in his hands, points it at you, and you dump the rest of the mag into his prone body in 1.5seconds, and THEN he drops the gun. Good shoot? maybe.

OR maybe they claim you are lying when you say he pointed the gun at you after already being shot, that you are using that as an excuse for murdering a (now) defenseless man....

Defense is allowed. Vengeance, is not.

[Dreaming100Straight]

There is a difference between intending to shoot and intending to kill. When stopping an intruder you best be intending to shoot to stop a threat and not intending to kill, even if shot to an area that is most likely to kill just happens to be most likely to end the threat.

[Oysterboy]

^^^ Keep that in mind. ^^^

When it comes to legal representation never say, "I killed that bugger!" Say, "I had to stop the threat as I was in fear of my life!"

It may keep you out of jail.

[Metal god]

The word you're looking for is incapacitate . When asked what do you mean by that ? You tell the truth , to immediately stop the bad guy from hurting or killing me or my family .

[lefteye]

I had to "STOP" the threat seems to be the best response, BUT don't overdo it.