[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

...I don't think they'd do that if they thought homicide charges were likely....

Well there seems to be no doubt that he committed homicide. So now might be a good time for folks who might not know to learn what "homicide" is.

1. "Homicide" is simply the killing of one person by another. So let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."
   
   
   1. "Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.
      
      
   2. A homicide can be --
      
      
      1. Accidental;
         
         
      2. Negligent;
         
         
      3. The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
         
         
      4. Intentional without malice (evil intent);
         
         
      5. Intentional with malice; and
         
         
      6. Intentional, premeditated and with malice.
      
      
   3. An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.
      
      
   4. A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.
      
      
   5. Homicides (3) - (6) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.
      
      
   6. The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.
      
      
   7. If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.
      
      
   8. Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.
   
   
2. Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.
   
   
   1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
      
      
      1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
         
         
      2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
         
         
      3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
      
      
   2. The amount of force an actor my justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
      
      
      1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
         
         
         1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
            
            
         2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
            
            
         3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
         
         
      2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
         
         
      3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
         
         
      4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
         
         
      5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
      
      
   3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
      
      
      1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
         
         
      2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
         
         
      3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
         
         
         1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
            
            
         2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
            
            
         3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
            
            
         4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
      
      
   4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
3. Since the maintenance man here apparently intentionally shot three people, two of whom died, his actions satisfy the elements of the crimes of manslaughter (at least) and aggravated assault (although different jurisdictions might give those crimes different names.
   
   
   1. If he now claims that he is free of criminal responsibility because his use of lethal force was justified, it will be up to him to present evidence establishing, prima facie, his legal justification.
      
      
   2. Maybe the evidence, once reviewed, will be sufficient to exonerate him at an early stage. Or maybe it will be up to a jury to decide.
      
      
   3. But anyone who uses violence against another human, even if he claims self defense, will need to go through the process until it can be decided that the use of force was legally justified.