Self-defense question

Factual Questions
21

But do you have a cite for that?

I don’t see where a bystander would be responsible for the guy’s safety, to the point of facing criminal charges if he fails to render aid. I also don’t see where it’s written that a guy who justifiedly uses nonlethal force to kayo someone in self-defense would be responsible – to the point of facing criminal charges – if he fails to render aid.

Well, let me make sure we both have this straight.

What I’m saying is, during the fight, the guy acting in self-defense will face criminal charges if he uses more force than necessary – and so he hits his opponent just hard enough to get a nonlethal knockout; if he’d hit harder, if he’d caused death by using more force than necessary, sure, lock him up – but he doesn’t, he takes care to break no laws when knocking the guy out; he, like a mere bystander, is guilty of no crime.

And then, after the fight, when a bystander would face no criminal charges for just sipping a mint julep while cheerfully watching the unconscious man die, you say the guy who justifiedly delivered the knockout blow would face criminal charges for likewise refusing to lift a finger. And where is that spelled out?

But you presumably wouldn’t say that about the bystander, right? As a matter of law, someone who wasn’t involved – but who saw the whole thing, and who freely admits that he could have easily moved the guy off the tracks – would face no criminal charges for letting that guy die, because you’re aware of no felonies or misdemeanors that he’s committed; it’s not a question for a jury.

So: what felony or misdemeanor did the other guy commit? Granting, for the sake of argument, that he committed no crime during the fight: what crime do you think he committed after the fight, when he acted the same as a mere bystander who shouldn’t need to stand before a jury?

During the fight, neither the puncher nor the bystander were guilty of any crimes. After the fight, one is guilty of no crime for refusing to help; no jury needed. What crime do you think the other guy needs a jury to weigh in on?

22

Waldo, I’m talking about the involved party not the bystander. I don’t know much about the bystander stuff except for morals that’s all.

What I meant if you killed a person in self defense you didn’t mean to but it happened. That’s what you say to the jury. If you said yeah I killed the bugger they’ll convict you for murder.

As to rendering aid, at least call the friggin ambulance.

23

While it doesn’t seem to have an answer to this question, the blog http://lawandthemultiverse.com/ is written by a lawyer who likes applying real world laws to superhero stories, and is a fun read for anyone who likes this kind of thing.

The knockout blow is ‘justified’ as self-defense, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a specially legally sanctioned maneuver that is free from any criticism. That seems to be the stumbling block here, you seem to be treating ‘justified as self defense’ as ‘it’s perfectly and completely OK to do and to ignore any consequences of’. The ‘justified’ use of force just means that you can’t be charged with assault for it, it doesn’t mean that you’re free from any consequences. There’s no law against me digging a hole in my yard, and no law against me covering a hole with a tarp, but if I make a pit trap and a kid gets hurt in it I’m going to be in trouble even though the component actions aren’t illegal.

The specific legal theory is going to vary from place to place, but it’s going to work out to something like ‘you put the guy into a dangerous situation where he can’t save himself for death, therefore you’re responsible for keeping him from dying’. You probably wouldn’t be facing murder charges (unless you were dumb enough to confess to engineering the setup), but would be facing something under ‘negligent homicide’ or ‘manslaughter’.

The bystander is completely different because he had nothing to do with creating the risky conditions, so doesn’t bear any responsibility for the situation. Interestingly, in most states if he started rendering medical aid to the villain, he would then acquire a duty of care until the villain was OK - so he could actually be in trouble if he started bandaging wounds, then abandoned the villain to the train.

Good Samaritan laws offer liability protection for people who render aid, they don’t require people to offer assistance. Seinfeld is not a documentary :slight_smile: Any law requiring people to render assistance would likely run into significant problems in the US legal system, I’m not aware of anything like that on the books, much less a prosecution under it surviving appeals.

24

Well, you say that I can’t be charged with assault for justifiedly knocking someone out in self-defense, and I think that I follow you.

But you seem to add that I could be charged with a crime for then doing nothing else after justifiedly knocking someone out in self-defense.

You talk about how I could “be in trouble even though the component actions aren’t illegal.” You say I “probably wouldn’t be facing murder charges” – but “would be facing something under ‘negligent homicide’ or ‘manslaughter’.” But the part I’m stressing is, there are no component actions; there’s just the one action, the justified knockout blow, delivered with no criminal intent.

So that one action – which wasn’t a crime in general, or assault in particular – later becomes homicide or manslaughter even though I don’t take a second action? Isn’t it kind of the other side of the ‘eggshell skull’ coin – where, were I guilty of a minor crime for lightly striking him, I’d be guilty of homicide if he died from that one blow; but, since I’m guilty of no crime for lightly striking him in justified self-defense, I wouldn’t be guilty of homicide if he died from that same single blow?

But all I did – I guess I’m the superhero? – was deliver a justified knockout punch in self-defense with no intent to commit a crime. After that, neither I nor the bystander introduce some new element; but before that, neither I nor the bystander did anything criminal, right? (Is my tort liability different from my criminal liability?)

25

IANAL. But -

Assuming there is no Good Samaritan law in that jurisdiction, ISTM that the hero is under no obligation to render assistance, even if he knocked the villain out.

If Super Guy is just standing on the platform, and Captain Evil falls onto the track and knocks himself out, SG has no duty of care to CE. He can stand by and watch the train run him over, because a bystander cannot be arrested even for showing callous indifference.

If Super Guy is standing on the platform, and Captain Evil attacks him, and Super Guy then employs force at a level legally justified to defend himself against the threat, then I don’t see how that can impose any duty of care on SG after the threat is removed. SG then returns to the same status as any other bystander. So what if SG punched him? That was only to defend himself against the threat - there was no bailment, no legal contract, and it didn’t create any legally enforceable relationship between them, because SG didn’t consent to be attacked. How can I attack someone and force them to render me assistance that is necessary because of my own actions?

Practically, it might be better if SG leaves the scene, so he can plausibly argue that he wanted to remove himself to minimize the risk of follow-up attack by CE. And who knows what a jury would do, and no doubt CE’s heirs can sue SG if they want and can find an Evil Lawyer. Whether or not they can win is another question.

We are strangers. I owe you nothing. You attack me, and I repel your attack. I still owe you nothing.

Regards,
Shodan

26

Crimes based around negligence specifically do not require intent to commit a crime, if there’s intent to commit a crime then it’s not really negligence (and typically is a higher crime). So ‘criminal intent’ is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, when the guy dies because of your action it becomes a crime, even if the action wasn’t a crime on its own. You rendered the guy helpless and left his body in the path of a train, there wasn’t a risk involved in saving him so no argument ‘if I had waited around I would have died too’, the result of the circumstances was obvious to a reasonable man, and there weren’t any other extenuating circumstances.

27

I believe negligence involves actions, not the failure to act, except when one owes a duty of care towards the party on whose behalf you failed to act. If I were your father or something, and you fall in front of a train, I might be negligent in not trying to rescue you, because I have a duty of care to my children. I don’t have any such duty to a stranger - I can stand there and watch you get run over if I like.

I don’t think that’s the case.

I attack you on the street, you push me backwards, I trip and hit my head on the curb and fracture my skull. If you were justified in the initial push, it doesn’t become a crime if you die and not a crime if you live.

You don’t need extenuating circumstances, any more than the other bystanders need them. They have no duty of care to a stranger, and I have no duty of care to a stranger if he attacks me. My justified use of force in self-defense doesn’t obligate me to act to protect him from the consequences of his crime.

If you rob my house and fall out the window and break your leg, I don’t have to pay your hospital bills. I can leave you to deal with the consequences of your crime and do nothing. I don’t even have to call 911 on your behalf - it’s your problem, not mine, and it doesn’t become my problem because you tried to rob my house. My duty towards you is the same as it is towards everyone who doesn’t try to rob me - nothing.

It would be nice of me to take a low- or no-risk action to save you from the consequences, but I don’t have to. It would be nice if I donated to a fund to pay the hospital bills of some stranger who broke his leg in a perfectly innocent way, but I don’t have to, and I can’t be legally compelled to do so unless you can show that I owed some duty to the person with the broken leg. Or to his widow and orphans if he dies.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - if it really is Daredevil, there isn’t any problem. Isn’t Matt Murdock a lawyer? Plus he’s blind, and therefore more sympathetic.

28

Just to be clear, I’m assuming for the sake of argument that not only was there no criminal intent during the self-defense, but also no recklessness and no negligence; that, if expert witnesses were called at trial, they’d testify that in their opinion the minimum necessary amount of force was used to foil the lethal threat; and that even an achingly responsible Reasonable Man would’ve acted no differently.

Sure, but, again: imagine that rendering him helpless right then and there is what a reasonable man would’ve done in that situation – not merely that it “wasn’t a crime on its own”, but that the authorities (a) would have locked him up for hitting his assailant harder, and (b) would’ve used force to stop said assailant had they arrived on the scene in time, but (c) wouldn’t lock our hero up for throwing that knockout punch, and wouldn’t recommend any other action he should’ve taken instead.

29

I do. Courts and society in general frown on escalating a conflict to the point of death without good reason, and knocking someone out, then letting them die as a direct result of the injury is generally frowned upon. You acquired a duty of care when you knocked the guy out and left his body in an obviously dangerous situation that you could easily make non-dangerous. I don’t have any cites and don’t have the inclination to reasearch this in depth, so it’s pretty much ‘yes it is’ ‘no it isn’t’ at this point.

Rendering him helpless and leaving his body in the path of a train does, even if rendering him helpless is perfectly justified.

30

(c) is basically saying ‘imagine you concede the argument’, which is silly. The whole point is that the authorities WOULD recommend moving the guy’s body out of the path of the train, thus avoiding the whole death thing. That’s the ‘any other action’ they would recommend. But like I said in my other reply, I’m not motivated enough to dig up cites on this, so I’m going to bow out since we’re basically at ‘yes it is’, ‘no it isn’t’ discussion.

31

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to sidestep the argument about whether he should move the body after delivering the knockout punch; I’m saying they’d okay throwing the knockout punch, full stop, because hitting harder would be too much and doing less wouldn’t get the job done, but “just right” is reasonable – and then, if asked what he should do after that, sure, they can suggest some second action if they want.

But that knockout punch simply is one action, all by itself, isn’t it?

32

You aren’t escalating anything. The conflict is over at that point. And he isn’t dying as the direct result of his injury.

As mentioned, it is equally easy for bystanders to easily remove the danger. Yet they are under no obligation to do so. Why would acting in legitimate self-defense create such an obligation.

Cite. None of the conditions apply AFAICT. The defendant didn’t create the peril thru negligence - he was acting in legitimate self-defense. He didn’t start to rescue the bad guy and then stop, and he had no special relationship with the bad guy. He was attacked by the bad guy - you cannot legally obligate someone towards you by force.

Therefore, absent any of the conditions, Hero Guy is under no duty to rescue Bad Guy from the consequences of his own bad act, any more than if Bad Guy had fallen in front of a train because he was drunk.

Regards,
Shodan

33

The bolded text is likely not the case in the scenario presented. People knocked out by strikes or chokes/strangle holds used reasonably (not excessively) will usually regain consciousness within seconds and begin rolling around and staggering back up onto their feet trying to figure out what just happened. There would be a significant likelihood that the evil villain guy would wake up in the hero’s grip part way’s through the recue attempt (and actually wouldn’t need rescuing at all unless he got dropped as the train was approaching), and being that he’s A) evil and more importantly B) was previously attempting to harm the hero, he’d likely continue the attack… could even use the fact that he suddenly found himself in the hero’s bear hug and thought he himself was under attack to justify continuing the fight.

Given that this helpless person in front of you was only seconds earlier attacking you, and that they’re laying in a potentially dangerous location, you can’t state that there would be no risk to rescuing your attacker. Also, keep in mind that the act of rendering someone unconscious, especially with strikes while under duress and in a self-defence scenario, is very inexact and it’s not like you choose exactly how hard he gets hit and what position he may fall. So I don’t think a reasonable person would believe that you deliberately hit the guy and a manner so that he fell across the tracks… his landing was by chance and you couldn’t help that.

34

I don’t think that’s true. Once you stopped the threat the threat is over. Now it becomes a different scenario.

35

“Duty to rescue” laws are often mis-named as “Good Samaritan” laws.

But it also depends on the jurisdiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Now, that last line probably means the bystander, while technically in violation, would be unlikely to be prosecuted. But for the Vigilante who created the danger in the first place, such prosecution would be more likely.

That link also indicates that many other places have similar rules.

36

Not from a strangle, but the other thing someone does after waking up from being knocked out with a strike is puke. Being knocked out is not like the movies - a concussion producing any period of unconsciousness is a significant injury involving the risk of death. And people are not particularly lively, well-coordinated, or clear-thinking, after suffering such an injury. I speak from experience.

Quite correct. “Duty to rescue” means you have to try to help. “Good Samaritan” means if you make a mistake in trying to help, you can’t be held liable. If you have a heart attack, I don’t have to do CPR. If I do CPR and break your ribs, I can’t be sued. In theory.

Also correct, in that it depends on the jurisdiction, but the duty to warn the authorities is not quite the same as the duty to do anything else to rescue Captain Evil. Even in a duty-to-rescue state, if Our Hero whips out the Batphone and dials 911, he is probably off the hook, even if he just leaves his arch-nemesis lying in the subway track.

Next question: If Commissioner Gordon sends up the Bat-Signal, is he deputizing the Cowled Crusader, and thus the Dark Knight has to read the Penguin his rights before tossing a bat-a-rang at his head?

Regards,
Shodan

37

There is a pretty broad spectrum of responses from getting knocked out in different ways and to levels of severity (even though I think they all risk or cause brain damage).

About the lowest end I’ve seen are the “flash-kos”, where someone takes a shot to the head which puts them out for a fraction of a second, but by the time they hit the ground they wake up again and resume what they were doing seemingly unaffected… these can be particularly exciting to see during combat sport competitions.

Next in my own made up categorization scheme come the more typical 2-10 seconds out KO… followed by the guy getting up on his own either quick (usually needing to be held back by the ref from continuing and having a puzzled look on his face not cause he didn’t realize he was out), or more slowly and standing/sitting back up with help and feeling clumsy/woozy.

Lastly you get the scariest type to witness where the guy’s body hits the floor and goes rigid and a leg or two might quiver for a bit. That’s usually followed by the medics putting the guy on a stretcher and you don’t see them regain consciousness because they’re out for minutes …or more.

Of course most Hollywood KOs have the guy take 1 hit, make a particular dramatic facial expression, and gracefully fall back in a big reverse swan dive and then subsequently lay perfectly still for minutes to hours at a time. The scenario here seems to assume more of the Hollywood KO where minimum force is used yet the guy seems to stay asleep for minutes on end (hence the risk of leaving him where he fell). I’d say anyone who’s been hit hard enough (or strangled long enough) to remain unconscious for several minutes is just as likely to die from brain damage as the train.

38

I’d say almost certainly. It’s been well-established that private citizens acting as agents of the police cannot engage in activities which the police themselves are prohibited from carrying out, and being called out by the top officer in the police department would have to be considered to make you their agent.

Any other conclusion would provide far too easy a work-around for virtually any constitutional limits on police powers, otherwise.

39

Everyone is talking about the attacker being in the dangerous situation because of the defender’s actions. But is that really true? I can see an argument that the attacker is in the dangerous situation because of the attacker’s own actions.