Only until the prosecution leads evidence that you had no idea at the meterial time that the person was a serial killer.
I’m pretty dubious you can base a self-defence plea on a danger you weren’t aware of at the time. So the bit about the guy ending up being a serial killer seems irrelevant.
The other half of the question is can you chase someone down and shoot them if you catch someone prowling around your house. Again, I think the answer is “no”. Note even in the case mentioned in the OP, the homeowner is claiming his shooting was self-defence because the guy punched him and grabbed for his gun, not that he shot him purely because he caught him on his property.
(also, that has to be one of the least well written articles I’ve ever read. The description of the guys story is so garbled its almost impossible to figure out what he claimed happened).
It doesn’t really matter if you had an idea that he was a serial killer. You only need to believe (or claim to believe) he was going to harm YOU to make it a justifiable shooting (in most states). Whether or not you really were in fear for your life is something a prosecutor would investigate under normal circumstances, especially given that the intruder was shot in the back while fleeing, but this wouldn’t be a normal circumstance.
It is my belief that once it was discovered that the victim was a serial killer, then the case against the shooter would be dropped. The shooter would be given the benefit of the doubt because, hell, he SHOULD have been in fear for his life. No prosecutor is going to stick his neck out for justice for a serial killer, nor would any jury convict the shooter given the circumstances.
And given the facts of the case, it’s impossible to argue that someone with their back turned while fleeing is a reasonable danger to you.
I would strongly suspect that if the case were to reach a trial, any evidence about the victim being a serial killer would be suppressed because it is immaterial and prejudicial. I simply do not believe that the jury would ever hear that the victim was a serial killer.
Wrong. What you need is a reasonable belief that he was going to harm you. Shooting someone in the back who is running away from you doesn’t qualify as a reasonable belief.
The question wasn’t whether it was justifiable homicide, but whether you’d be PROSECUTED for it. I’m arguing that you wouldn’t.
I would hope that any sane prosecutor would realize the can of worms that would be opened if prosecution didn’t follow such an act.
What trial? I’m arguing that the case would never make it to trial, because the DA wouldn’t pursue it. (That’s my OPINION.) Remember that D.A.s are politically elected, and I highly doubt they’d divert their resources and dollars to try and convict a man who shot a serial killer. In a perfect world, justice is blind. But this isn’t a perfect world.
In other cases involving wrongful death (e.g. Trayvon Martin), you also have an outraged family putting pressure on the DA to bring charges against the shooter. Who’s going to be putting pressure on the DA in this case – the serial killer’s family? No. They’re going to be seeking obscurity and/or moving out of the area asap to avoid the stigma of being family to a serial killer.
And the shooter? He’d be doing endless interviews and writing books on his ordeal.
Why do you suppose that people are prosecuted for murdering drug dealers? I sat on a jury a few years ago for three men who were tried of doing just that.
ETA: I also point out that you (and others) referred to a jury being unable to convict someone in the defendant’s position. I’m primarily saying that a jury most likely would not hear evidence about the victim being a serial murderer.
Depends on how political the DA is, and where his politics leaned, also on how the media pushed it, and how much you shot your mouth off to the police.
So, conservative DA, supportive media, you kept your mouth shut and let your lawyer talk to police- you may well be hailed as a hero.
Liberal anti-gun DA, media wanting you lynched (maybe the serial killer is a young black guy and you’re a white dude) and you blabbed everything to the cops? ooops. One nice thing, they’d probably treat you OK in prison.
I have prosecuted and won on lesser evidence.
Was it against a serial killer murderer?
If “NYPD Blue” taught me anything - a tough detective with a bad prostate and a heart of gold will sit down with the shooter, and tell them exactly how to write their statement so it’s a clear case of self-defense.
You would be charged, of course.
You would be convicted if the prosecution can keep out any reference to the serial killers crimes. (he may be able to, because they are irrelevant to the crime being prosecuted)
If not, and the jury leans about the guy…probably acquitted of the top count.