"Bringing About the Difficulty" -- Self Defense Legal Doctrine

[WillametteWill]

This is interesting information to read. What has changed since many of these cases is more jurisdictions are "stand your ground" (likely the most misused term in self defense) or not requiring a duty to retreat for self defense. In some locations, although retreat is not required, it still may be considered by a jury. Some of these older cases may not have application under current laws, but some no doubt will. It is interesting to see where we have been.

Some of the other examples fall under the "innocence" category or initial aggressor / provoker. Jurisdictions can have different ways this is seen as well. Thanks for this thread with some deeper, nuanced issues @RicInOR. Your avatar is appropriate with this topic!

 

[RicInOR]

This article is kind of about Kyle, but more it is about the law and "whether conduct is morally blameworthy"
and on SelfDefense.

Worth the time.

"To understand the law of self-defense, it is important to understand the difference between a legal excuse and a legal justification. Doctrines that are sound in justification and excuse both work to shield people from criminal liability. A legal justification is a theory of exculpation that asserts that the conduct in question is desirable—or at least not undesirable. It is the sort of conduct that the law says should happen under the circumstances. The conduct is justified. By contrast, an excuse recognizes the conduct to be undesirable, but allows that reasonable people likely would engage in that conduct under the circumstances. It excuses behavior that the law otherwise eschews. Self-defense is considered a legal justification, not an excuse. It is encouraged (justified) behavior, as compared to doctrines like duress (e.g., a person is blackmailed into committing a robbery on threat of someone harming his child) which are considered a legal excuse—the law does not encourage this behavior, but understands why a reasonable, law-abiding person would engage in such behavior. Self-defense, as a justification, sends an affirmative message to the public. The conduct in question is warranted. Desired. Justified. This is a powerful message; society is encouraging its citizens to employ deadly force in certain, albeit highly circumscribed, circumstances."

The Rittenhouse Trial: A Legal Scholar Responds

Sydney. London. Toronto.

quillette.com

"Self-defense, therefore, is an absolute defense. The structure of the law incentivizes citizens to use deadly force when certain standards are met. If the jury believes a person acted in self-defense, the jury is duty-bound to acquit. At common law, the law of self-defense takes into account five principal concepts: 1) proportionality; 2) imminent threat of harm; 3) reasonable apprehension; 4) first aggressor doctrine; and 5) duty to retreat. Here's how it works. The use of force must be proportionate. If someone plucks your ear, you can't hit them with a baseball bat. That's not proportionate to the original force applied. The threat that justifies the use of force must be imminent. You cannot, for example, leave the scene and come back later and settle a score. The threat is no longer imminent, and self-defense will not be available. Your fear of a threat must be objectively reasonable. Your subjective assessment of the threat is not sufficient; the legal question regards whether a reasonable person, under the same circumstances, would have perceived the situation as a threat. Then, courts apply two equitable doctrines to the analysis. The first is the first aggressor doctrine. The first aggressor loses the ability to assert a self-defense claim. Quite simply, if you initiate the encounter, you cannot later claim self-defense. And, finally, before courts authorize the use of deadly force by civilians, in most instances, you have a duty to safely retreat. State law varies with respect to a duty to retreat, and "Stand Your Ground" laws in many states further complicate this equitable doctrine. That said, the foregoing represents the basic framework for self-defense law with minor variations among the states."

 

[WillametteWill]

The above sounds like Andrew Branca talking (but it is not). Nice posting and information / concepts those choosing to carry a gun should understand well.