Murder or justified homicide?

Question

First note this is completely hypothetical.
A man hears a noise in his gararge and goes to investigate , apon entering the gararge he is shot by a person carrying a single shot weapon . The man lunges forward grabbing his attacker by the neck forcing them into a wall, in doing so breaking his attackers neck and killing them.
Ye i'm aware that one is allowed to protect their life by any means necessary, but on the other hand once the single shot is fired there is no longer imminent danger. One could argue that said man in a fit of rage attacked his attacker inadvertently  killing them and presue a murder 2 conviction , or even argue malicious intent apon attack and presue a murder 1 conviction , or did the person attack under duress resulting in a fatality .

If a DA what should the charg be , if a juror how do yo vote . Depending on supporting context any one could be proper , but which senario is just .

Forgive my spelling and grammar, never been my strong suit

StephenWeinstein · Accepted Answer

If the information you gave was the only evidence, then there should be no charge if it was legal for him to have the gun (otherwise, there could be a charge like illegal gun possession or failure to register the gun or something like that). Nothing you said indicates that he KNEW it was a single shot weapon. All he knew was that someone shot him in his garage, and it could have been with a weapon that can fire a second shot, or the shooter could have had a second gun. Since he reasonably thinks that he is in imminent danger of being shot again, his actions could be considered self-defense/justifiable.

For your question to make sense, there would have to be evidence that he knew that it was a single shot weapon. At the very least, add in enough time between the shot and the counterattack so that he would know that the shooter had stopped shooting.

For your question to make sense, there would have to be evidence that he knew that it was a single shot weapon.  At the very least, add in enough time between the shot and the counterattack so that he would know that the shooter had stopped shooting.

eat_slp.fish · Answer

The real worl is a fickle place filled with those in high places who set their own agenda ahead of all else , this is why hair dryers ar sold with labels warning agenst using them while showering

? · Answer

How would the person shot know that it was a single shot weapon? In any case the maximum charge would be manslaughter. However in the real world it would be a case of self defense.

Anonymous · Answer

Are you British?  Something like this is not within American concepts of self defense.  The big reason is whose property was it.  Under American law you are pretty much lord of the castle and can use deadly force to protect it and yourself. Period. You can take out the parts about the gun and getting shot, and it would still be the same under American law.   Well, Texas law.

Trending News

Murder or justified homicide?

4 Answers