That’s not true. A major problem with Enderw24’s analysis is that he’s confusing tort law with criminal law. His Torts book is dealing with a defense against the tort of battery. In other words, a third party can argue a self-defense exception if sued for shooting a person.
There are similar provisions for criminal charges in some jurisdictions. However, not all jurisdictions recognize this defense. To answer the OP, this is not a way to legally murder somebody. It is a way to illegally murder somebody and get away with it by lying.
I agree that it’s not much of a technicality if you have to lie to pull it off.
Maybe a better way to put the question is as follows:
Is there any way to plan to kill somebody, and execute the plan, such that even with full disclosure of the plan, you would face no civil or criminal liability?
For example, suppose you want to kill A. So you start having an affair with A’s wife and arrange to meet her on a day when you know A is coming home early from work - it is virtually certain that you will be caught in flagrante. You leave a loaded revolver on the table near the door, fully expecting that A will see you, fly into a jealous rage, pick up the revolver, and attempt to shoot you. As expected, A does all of this, but just before he pulls the trigger, you pull out your own gun and shoot him.
Later, you disclose to the authorities the whole truth: You intended all of the time to kill A, but at the moment you shot him, you legitimately feared for your life.
Would you face criminal and/or civil liability for the killing?
(trying to redeem himself w/ the next reply) Legal Murder… How about in war? One plans to kill somebody, and executes the plan. There is usually full disclosure of the plan. And normally you would not face civil or criminal liability. Does that count?
Neurodoc was claiming that self-defense would excuse the shooter from criminal liability, but not civil liability. I was saying that it does get you off from civil liability too, in whatever jurisdiction Ender’s torts book covers. I don’t know any jurisdiction that doesn’t recognize self-defense as a defense against a murder charge, although maybe there are some where it won’t excuse you from accidentally killing the third party.
I always thought the best way would to just join the Army where you can travel to other lands & shoot people all you want as long as you are ordered to.
to mean you were saying that if it excuses you from tort it excuses you from criminal liability. You also seemed to focus on self-defense as an excuse, but the OP was talking about a different scenario: shooting the wrong person. That’s a far different scenario. We might be agreeing here, I just wanted to clarify my comments. I also want to reiterate that the thread was so confusing in part because people were discussing tort law and criminal law interchangeably.
I agree that we shouldn’t allow the killer to commit perjury for his “legal” killing. This would only count as legal if you don’t commit ANY crimes during the commision of the act.
Let’s see. I seem to remember an episode of “Law and Order” where a woman killed a guy by giving him biker colors for a present and then taking him to the bar where her biker gang friends hung out. The bikers were enraged and killed him. On the show the bikers that did the deed were prosecuted and the woman got away with it.
I don’t even think she could be charged with conspiracy…conspiracy requires a second party, and she didn’t plan the killing with any of the bikers. She just knew that they’d whack a guy who wore their colors.
I think this is the best way to do it…convince the victim to put themselves in a dangerous situation which you did not create. Of course, this requires that you are able to get the victim to do things because you ask him to. You can say, “Bet you can’t walk across the railroad trestle over the canyon”, but you can’t loosen the boards yourself. Assuming that you want to play by the rules and have some bizarre scruple about commiting perjury.
Thanks all for your responses so far. Food for thought, for certain.
Yes, this was indeed a case of a little bit of knowledge leading to a whole lot of trouble. Thank goodness I didn’t go through with my foolproof plan! See, my torts prof has been piling on quite a bit of work lately and…
I did fail to consider a number of things. The least of them being that lying would probably be spotted quite easily by the police. Also, since the guy assaulting you will be charged with the murders you committed, he’d have no reason to protect you. Therefore, you’d have to kill him. Therefore, he’d be an idiot to help you with the plan.
So, in essence, the only way this is a foolproof plan is if you have fools helping you pull it off.
Also, this Torts book deals with the entire US. It’s the Prosser, Wade, & Schwartz book and it goes through the Restatement (second) of Torts and the common laws employed throughout US history on various topics. Specific state laws probably won’t be dealt with until the end of second year.