# Self defence by harming another innocent **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 9, 2020, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199 "2020-09-09T19:53:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CardboardBoxx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardboardboxx/32/7079_2.png) [@CardboardBoxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CardboardBoxx)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/1 "2020-09-09T19:53:40Z")
This is not specific to any jurisdiction, but I’m wondering what crime John would generally be charged with, if any, in this situation. John is minding his own business, hasn’t caused the situation, but suddenly is in a scenario where he is going to die unless he does action X. Those are literally his only choices. However doing action X will kill Sarah, who is also an innocent who has not caused the situation. John has about a minute thinking time so it’s not an instantaneous reaction. I don’t want to create a specific situation because people will pick holes in it. Just assume that - without X John will die. - with X Sarah will die - there are no other choices - Neither John or Sarah are responsible for the situation. - John has some thinking time. If John does X, what is he likely to be charged with? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/2 "2020-09-09T19:55:29Z")
As I understand it, homicide is never legally defensible on grounds of needing to save one’s own life. Other, lesser crimes may be, but not homicide. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/3 "2020-09-09T20:00:22Z")
That’s not so. Self survival is defensible. This goes far back in time. The best illustration is the case of two people lost at sea with just 1 life preserver between them. I’ll bypass some of the fine details and get to a clear case. If Sarah will not share the life preserver with John he may do whatever is necessary to secure it for himself. He does not have to give up his life for her. In real cases he might have to do harm to her to prevent her from killing him. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/4 "2020-09-09T20:01:35Z")
> [@CardboardBoxx](#): > > If John does X, what is he likely to be charged with? That is genuinely unanswerable without narrowing down what “X” is. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/5 "2020-09-09T20:04:27Z")
I’d be inclined to cut a finer line with the knife, but IANAL (I am not a lawyer). If action X is an action that Sarah also has to engage in or else she dies, and the situation is such that only one of them can engage in action X, so that John’s X intrinsically takes away Sarah’s ability to do X for herself, I don’t think it is morally or legally required of either John or Sarah that they refrain from X in order that the other avail themselves of it instead. (example: there’s one parachute and it can’t carry two people safely). But if Sarah is going to passively survive without doing anything, and John kills Sarah if he does X but dies if he doesn’t, that’s some form of manslaughter. He doesn’t get to kill others in order to remain alive, generally speaking. ---
**Author:** ![CardboardBoxx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardboardboxx/32/7079_2.png) [@CardboardBoxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CardboardBoxx)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/6 "2020-09-09T20:06:53Z")
OK, for simplicity’s sake, although I don’t want to narrow it to **just** this scenario, let’s go with the standard Trolley problem, only for some reason neither John or Sarah can get off their respective track, and both have a good reason to be on the trolley tracks. At the moment the trolley will hit John, he can push a lever to make it hit Sarah. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/7 "2020-09-09T20:11:49Z")
Intended ETA: : or to borrow TriPolar’s life preserver example, John can do what he must if the life preserver could save both of them but Sarah isn’t sharing, but Sarah’s refusal to share could get her charged if John drowns; if they both would sink and drown due to the life preserver being unable to keep them both alive, neither is required morally or legally (I think) to surrender it to the other and that’s not murder no matter who grabs it for themself. Or defends against it being taken away. I’m less inclined to say John is in the clear if he rips it from her and she drowns though, possession and 9/10ths of the law and all that shit. Whoever gets to it first as “X” = not a crime even if they don’t share, if only one can be saved; defending possession of it = not a crime either; taking it away from the other in order to survive is grey area at best. /ETA ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/8 "2020-09-09T20:14:50Z")
Hmm. How about this instead. You are in a car going downhill at high speed because the brakes have failed. If you don’t turn right now you are about to run into an inconveniently placed rock and die. It’s an old car so you don’t even have airbags. If you turn the car you will run over innocent bystanders. It’s not self-defense, it’s merely acting to save your own life. Not always admirable but I think legal if you find yourself in this position through no fault of your own. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/9 "2020-09-09T20:15:13Z")
But if there is only one kidney and we both need it to survive, I don’t think most people would think John murdering Sara for her healthy kidney was okay. Nor would we think it okay if a donated kidney was en route to Sara and John hijacked the car and took it for himself. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/10 "2020-09-09T21:04:53Z")
> [@CardboardBoxx](#): > > At the moment the trolley will hit John, he can push a lever to make it hit Sarah. Sarah will passively survive unless John actively pushes the lever. So he doesn’t get to push it. ---
**Author:** ![CardboardBoxx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardboardboxx/32/7079_2.png) [@CardboardBoxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CardboardBoxx)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/11 "2020-09-09T21:06:42Z")
I’m not asking for your wibbling about John’s morals. I’m more curious what will happen to him in most legal jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/12 "2020-09-09T21:12:05Z")
> [@CardboardBoxx](#): > > I don’t want to create a specific situation because people will pick holes in it. The trouble is, the situation is essential to the outcome, particularly when you conclude not simply with “could he be charged with any crime?” but rather “what is he likely to be charged with?” ETA: Consider: > **[R v Dudley and Stephens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens)** > > R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, DC is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder. The case concerned survival cannibalism following a shipwreck, and its purported justification on the basis of a custom of the sea. > The four-man crew of the wrecked yacht Mignonette were cast adrift in a small lifeboat without provisions. After nearly three weeks at sea, and with little hope of re... ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2020, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/13 "2020-09-09T21:19:21Z")
And FWIW, it seems to me that both “kill the other person and eat their body to survive” and “guzzle the last cup of water and gorge yourself on the last loaf of bread without sharing, thus ensuring the other person will starve to death or die of thirst and you won’t” both seem to fit the “X” in your scenario. So, again, the situation must be hashed out to have an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Dingbang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@Dingbang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dingbang)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2020, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-defence-by-harming-another-innocent/920199/14 "2020-09-10T16:40:55Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > [/quote]I’m less inclined to say John is in the clear if he rips it from her and she drowns though, possession and 9/10ths of the law and all that shit. Whoever gets to it first as “X” = not a crime even if they don’t share, if only one can be saved; defending possession of it = not a crime either; taking it away from the other in order to survive is grey area at best. /ETA So Rose was never prosecuted for killing Jack, who amiably froze to death rather than risk that tricky legal outcome.