What happens if a hero kills a terrorist?

The 'hero' would be tried for murder. The danger was over and past and he chose to kill him. It's a pretty open and sut case really.

The law usually permits a person to use "reasonable force" to prevent the commission of an offense if there is a risk of GBH to anyone (this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) - but once the person is unconscious and no longer a threat to anybody then no, you cannot continue to beat them up or kill them because you think they're a bad person. You should use the amount of force needed to make sure everybody is safe for the immediate moment. As you say that *can* include killing somebody, but most of the time it will not. If "the terrorist is already disarmed and unconscious, but instead of restraining him he decides to kill him" that's probably just murder. Doesn't it sound like murder to you?

Being mad is not the same as insanity, legal insanity requires you be so insane that you either didn't know what you were doing (ie, you thought you were cutting bread, not a man's face) or you had no concept that what you were doing was abnormal or wrong (which a mad person knows, they just don't care).

The best way to beat that charge is probably (sadly) to ask for a jury trial.

You put up a lot of maybes, but here's the deal- lethal force (killing someone) is justified, but on a moment-by-moment basis. As soon as you disable him by knocking him out, he is no longer a threat to anyone. At that point, no one has the right to kill the terrorist.

Let's keep going, moment-by-moment. He wakes up and still has the gun (you didn't remove the weapon). At that point, he becomes a threat again, and lethal force could be justified.

When he is no longer a threat, lying unconscious, you are not justified in any further lethal force.

This "moment-by-moment" analysis has to stand up in a court of law. If anyone decides to prosecute, *you* will have to prove the facts. At the moment he's first unconscious, are there any witnesses? How about when he wakes up- any witnesses? Lethal force is ... well, lethal. Exercising lethal force is a complicated matter, best left to professionals. However, you do what you think best. This answer will not constitute Use Of Force training. ... Good luck!!

From a legal standpoint, your right to act in lawful self-defense only lasts to the extent that the attacker remains a threat to you. If you continue to use force once the threat is neutralised, you are no longer acting in lawful self-defense and you don't have that legal protection any more.

In the situation you describe, if the terrorist was clearly incapacitated and no longer able to fight back, then if you killed him, you would be breaking the law and could face legal penalties. It doesn't matter what you think of the situation, or what was going on, you still attacked someone who no longer posed a threat. Once the terrorist was incapacitated, you should restrain them and contact police.

That said, police and prosecutors do have some discretion as to what cases they will prosecute, and depending on the circumstances they may decide not to proceed with legal action against you.

Okay so there's a little to consider:

- Did the hero get carried away, and therefore unintentionally murder the terrorist? if so he may be open to manslaughter rather than murder charges.

- Was the terrorist or hero a citizen in the country of the occurrence? if not, laws may change.

Was the terrorist still a threat in any way? Bombs, etc. can cause extra issues or complications

- Did the Hero panic / was he pressured?

It is wrong. He disarmed him, and restrained him. He did an evil deed, by deciding to kill him. A true hero would never take life, such as a Villain vs. Hero. He will do everything he can first. You could easily justify his actions, but is clearly evil.

it would all remember on no remember if there is an argument for self-defence. contained relating to the terrorist killed in Israel right this moment, there would surely be a case of self-defence as he had already attacked the occupants of various coaches and different automobiles with the bulldozer, and if he had not been stopped he would have killed many extra. in this occasion, if it have been interior the united kingdom, not extra action would be taken via the CPS because of the fact all the info potential that this became not a malicious act yet certainly one of self-defence.

I would think self defense I'm sure if it where to go down as cleanly as u put it, it would be pardoned probably even by the president of the united states cause you stood up and defied an act of terrorism

Obama takes credit for doing it.

It depends on the jurry