Moderating:
What is the point of this tasteless, racist “joke”? It adds nothing to the discussion and doesn’t appear to have any legitimate value for the discussion except to offend.
Don’t do this again.
I’d say that is the ridiculous standard. If the bar for self defense is “he could have decided to turn around and attack me” then pretty much any assault can be justified as self defense.
It did? Good question then. I totally thought this was DC based on the number local DC twitterati commenting on it.
Not that far from where I used to live actually.
Coincidentally, I was going to start a thread on a question related to self-defense.
I was reading a book yesterday which had a scene where a man raped a woman. In the immediate aftermath of the rape, the woman picked up a heavy object and smashed the man’s head with it, killing him. The book did not describe what happened after this.
How does that work legally? It would have been justified as self-defense if she had killed him before the rape or during the rape because that would have been an act to prevent the rape. But is self-defense allowed after the crime has been completed?
Is there a legal defense for killing somebody by arguing that it self-defense after the fact? Or can somebody argue that one crime had already occurred and they therefore had a reasonable expectation that other crime might follow? If so, what’s the time frame? When has enough time passed to create a disconnection between the initial crime and a claim of self-defense? Or is there no self-defense argument in a case like this?
IANAL Who’s to say the crime has been “completed”? It would be reasonable to believe she felt her life was still in danger. Has the man fled, or is he just in the next room? I think it matters if she has to chase him down or not.
A home invader would be utterly horrifying, and would no doubt trigger a fight-or-flight response, and since it’s inside the home, “fight” is the only choice. I certainly wouldn’t fault a terrified homeowner, especially if they have a family, from using the maximum force they have available to expel the home invader. Chasing them with a frying pan, and even hitting them, to ensure they’re actually leaving, doesn’t seem excessive at all to me. IANAL, but this is easily self-defense to me (unless I’m missing some relevant facts that would change this).
That’s a reasonable thing to say about someone who you have reason to believe is dangerous and aggressive - for example, a burglar. It’s not a reasonable thing to say about a random person who has not given you any reason to fear.
It is Chicago, by the way: Homeowner fights off alleged burglar with frying pan: ‘My wife’s not happy about the decision I made’
These are the questions I’m asking. Are there legal precedents which cover these issues?
I’ll go with cast iron.
Gots 'em.
I wanna know, did the video dude just grab the skillet he was cooking in or a cold one?
Was the book called Judges?
Yup, in your house is the critical bit there. Someone has broken into your house it is perfectly reasonable to feel your life is in imminent danger and use deadly force in self defense. Any reasonable person (the man on the Clapham omnibus in British legal parlance) in that situation would feel their life is danger in that situation
However once that burglar has left your house, has run down the steps has opened your front gate and is about to exit your property, then absolutely not. No reasonable person would consider their life in imminent danger in those circumstances.
I don’t think so but I’ll be honest; I don’t remember the title.
I had some time to kill so I was reading an anthology of pulp crime stories. I don’t remember the title of the anthology or the title or author of the story.
Woosh, perhaps, but Judges as in the book from the Bible. You basically described the story of Yael, who kills Sisera in the fashion you describe. (I guess a tent peg is more of a sharp object than a heavy one?)
Where does reasonable action assert itself after your home has been invaded?
That is decided by the legal system, so who knows?
I served on a grand jury where someone threw a scale in the general direction of another person (and didn’t hit him.) The DA asked us to indict a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. I objected, as it wasn’t a weapon, and seemed unlikely to be deadly even to the extent it was used as a weapon. But grand juries don’t need unanimity, and we issued that indictment.
This wasn’t a cop or special forces soldier, trained for physical conflict and experienced with life or death situations – this was just a regular person, likely in absolute terror, with adrenaline spiked to the max. Someone had invaded his home, and he wanted to make sure he was really leaving. And all he did was hit him with a frying pan, before he had left the property.
If you’re judging him negatively on this action, then I don’t think you have any experience at all with what it’s like to be filled with adrenaline in a potential life-or-death situation.