Examples Of Justifiable Homicide
Whenever the word “homicide” comes into play, most people's first reaction is to quickly place blame on the individual involved. Although homicide is a terrible action, it can occasionally be justified under extremely specific laws. Not every case can be considered justifiable; however, the few that are would need to pass certain criteria in order to be named as such. Some of these circumstances include protecting oneself lawfully through self-defense, a soldier taking orders to fight in just wars, and law enforcement officers preventing a crime. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, justifiable homicide is the killing of a person in which it is reasonable or excused by law for which no criminal punishment is imposed (“Justifiable Homicide”).
…show more content…
The common belief that homicide can never be justified is quite arguable. Like many states, Kansas has joined the “stand-your-ground” movement by enacting the new law regarding the role self-defense plays in justifiable homicide. Kansas stands among 32 other states that have adopted a form of the Stand-Your-Ground Law (Love np). This law was first enacted in Florida in 2005 after a fatal shooting (Plumlee np). Although it has not been put into play much in Kansas, the law currently stands strong. Under this legislation, a person who is under attack is advised to run away before attempting to use any kind of force; however, if not possible, one is then able to use force in order to save themselves from further harm. Unless probable cause for an arrest exists, the individual would be immune to prosecution after harming, or even killing, a person; however, they would have to have acted strictly out of self-defense. Even the slightest implication stating otherwise would lead the individual to be prosecuted of murder. Many people argue that the line is too thin, and deciphering between right and wrong quickly becomes blurred. For this reason, the laws clearly state guidelines as to what is justifiable, and there is usually no exceptions made in order to benefit a certain circumstance. Along with the Stand-Your-Ground Law comes the Castle Doctrine. This law states that any person is allowed to use deadly force when threatened in a place they are entitled to be at, such as their home, cars, and even workplace (Garrett np). From state to state, this law has the power to differ greatly. What may be considered justifiable homicide in one state may end up being irrational manslaughter in the next. For example, in the state of Texas, attempting to retreat is not required when a criminal is attempting to break in, commit robbery, rape, or murder (Purves np). In contrast, states like California don't offer as much leeway. Their law does not cover using force on someone who is simply attempting to steal property; however, California's Castle Doctrine does cover using self-defense when a valid threat to one’s life is imposed (Purves np). In New York, the Castle Doctrine is not as strong as in these other states. Here, the law insists that the person attempt to retreat by any means necessary (Purves np). Their last option should always be to use force. So, for example, if a homeowner in New York shoots an intruder attempting to simply steal an item from inside the house he broke into, the homeowner would ultimately be convicted for their crime because the intruder did not attempt to harm anyone. The burglar would clearly face charges as well, but the homeowner wouldn't be off the hook for attempting to defend his belongings. Although this was an act of self-defense, some states might not see it as such. Even though New York’s Castle Doctrine is slightly stricter than in some other states, having any part of this law available could mean the difference between going to prison for life, or being granted an innocent verdict because of self-defense. If these laws were never enacted, many people would be locked up for simply trying to defend themselves within their own homes. According to Peter Hermann from The Baltimore Sun, there was a case in 2010 that ended with a dead body and a justified homicide court ruling (Hermann np). As this article stated, William Bozman awoke to find a strange man in his bedroom pointing a gun at his head (Hermann np). Not unlike Bozman, any rational person would have feared for their life at that exact moment in time. Not only had a complete stranger broken into his home, but he also had the audacity to threaten and point a gun at Bozman. There was a short feud between the two as the intruder demanded Bozman to open his safe and hand over whatever was inside. When presented with the opportunity, Bozman reached for his own gun and turned the tables on the intruder; however, the assailant was not fazed and decided to charge at Bozman. Fearing for his life, Bozman shot the gunman in the chest multiple times (Hermann np). After the trespasser slumped to the ground, Bozman quickly called the police. Because of the self-defense laws in Maryland, Bozman was not convicted of murder. If this law did not exist, Bozman would have been indicted for simply trying to protect his own home and ultimately his life. Because the intruder couldn’t seem to rationalize right from wrong, the situation could have only gone one of two ways: either Bozman was going to end up dead in his own home, or the circumstance could've played out exactly as it did. Although many people do not agree with a court ruling justifiable homicide, without this ruling, many people that were put in the same hostile situation as Bozman would have ended up in jail. In cases like this where a gun is involved, there is not much running a person can do, so fighting back is their only choice. Unlike William Bozman who was protected under a self-defense law, Bryan Spellers was not as fortunate. Bryan Spellers was 23 years old at the time he shot his stepfather (LaForgia np). Spellers allegedly shot his stepfather after a heated argument between the two escalated to a brutal fight between both Spellers’ mom and stepfather (Spellers 1117). According to Spellers, he felt as though his mother’s life was in danger; therefore, he chose to risk his future by shooting rather than risk something happening to his mother. Little did he know, his act of self-defense would ruin his life. When this case was taken to court, Spellers failed to file it under the Stand-Your-Ground law; instead, he proceeded with the case as though it were any other ordinary lawsuit (LaForgia np). This, alongside the failure to have his mother testify, put Spellers at a strong disadvantage. If Spellers’ attorney had not failed to provide the mother’s statement, the overall outcome might have vastly differed; however, that was not the case. Ultimately, Spellers was sentenced to a 20 year incarceration for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Spellers 1118). If the law would have played out as it was supposed to, Spellers would not have had to go to prison for saving his mother’s life.
Nobody can validly state that they don't believe in justifiable homicide, yet believe in war.
Although soldiers kill members of the opposing side for the greater good, their actions are still considered justified homicide; however, some guidelines have been set in order to help differentiate what is justifiable from what is unjustifiable. According to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentional attacks on a civilian population, harm to defenseless persons, and the misuse of a flag truce all fall under the category of being unjustifiable (Rome Statute of I.C.C. 5+). As long as the soldier were to be following orders at the time of the killing, the law states it is justifiable. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought (“Murder”). In order for homicide to be legal in a war setting, the soldier must commit the killing by following all of the set rules. A killing can not legally occur if the person were to be clearly unarmed and not dangerous. A killing of that sort could occur, but it would not technically be justifiable. If it weren't for these laws, every soldier that went out and killed someone would have to be charged for murder. This clearly doesn't make sense by any means; therefore, justified homicide is utterly relevant in this
matter.
There have been many cases where soldiers return home and come to question their actions. Some may even go into depression after not being able to come to terms with how many lives they had to take. Pete Kilner ended up questioning his judgements and went on a quest for answers. He quickly found out that no one could give him a direct answer as to why killing other people in combat was moral. Kilner set up a scenario that fairly explains his philosophy. He stated that everyone is entitled to an imaginary bubble that encircles them. Hypothetically speaking, this bubble represents someone's moral intuition. If person A were to be walking down the street and on a whim decided to pull a gun on person B, than person A would have automatically given up his very own bubble; furthermore, this would lead person B to be able to use force against person A because person A gave up not only his own “bubble of rights,” but somebody else's as well (Kilner np). The point he is trying to make is that the victim, person B, violated no rights because he did not have the choice of having his bubble popped. Kilner states that during war, soldiers on both sides have lost their hypothetical bubble and, therefore, are killing justifiably (Kilner np). For Kilner, justifying a killing would have to mean much more than just putting the blame on the commands that were given to him. Many people seem to hold two contradictory beliefs: killing is wrong, yet necessary during war. Timothy Kudo from The Washington Post made a great statement saying, “Many veterans are unable to reconcile such actions in war with the biblical commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’” (Kudo np). He also made a valid point when he reiterated that our wars are fought with volunteers; therefore, they are avoidable (Kudo np). Because these wars are avoidable, it seems to imply that people are signing up to kill. This, however, is usually not the case. Although some of these points may not be easily reasoned with in someone's mind, they are backed up by the many laws stating that homicide is justifiable in war. The journey one must take in order to clear things up in their mind about this issue is to each their own; however, if one is worried about the legality of their actions in war, they need not fret because as long as everything was done by the books, the law will be on their side.
Recently, several controversial cases of law enforcement killing perpetrators have arouse in several states. Unlike most killings, some of these are considered justifiable. According to the Justifiable Use of Force Statute, a couple of situations exist in which a law enforcement officer is able to lawfully use deadly force. A couple of these situations include firing a weapon at a vehicle in which a perpetrator is riding, shooting a deadly weapon at a prisoner attempting to escape from being detained, and when an officer reasonably believes a fleeing person is planning on causing harm to an officer or another person; however, if an officer where to use deadly force rather than less-lethal munition, the killing would no longer be justifiable (Justifiable Use of Force Statute 776.05+). In any case, using a taser or pepper spray would be recommended rather than inflicting deadly force.
Law enforcement officers may be put into difficult situations. Being able to decipher between the appropriate moments in which to use deadly force and when to use less-lethal force is critical. Just because a person is scared does not give them the right to automatically pull a trigger. Hypothetically speaking, if a police officer were to answer a call for a bank robbery, a conflict between him and the perpetrator might arise. In this scenario, the bank robber attempts to shoot the police officer out of fear of being caught; therefore, the officer then has the right to defend himself and his fellow officers by shooting back. If the officer were to kill the bank robber, it would just be a routine case. Although tragic, the killing would be considered justifiable in a court setting. Killing the robber might have stopped him from hurting anyone else as he attempted to escape detainment; therefore, the officer chose to do the correct thing.
According to an article from Tracy Weber at The Los Angeles Times, four officers were not convicted of any crimes in a controversial case back in 1996. The four officers were chasing a runaway man at almost 100 miles per hour (Weber np). Throughout the 32 minute chase and standoff, the officers shot a combined total of approximately 30 gunshots (Weber np). The man they were chasing, Hong Kim, could not be stopped, up until the moment the officers cornered him; however, he refused to be detained and decided to attempt to run over the officers. At that moment, the officers decided to open fire on Kim for fear of their lives. Unsurprisingly, when the case was taken to court, the court ruled this homicide justifiable. Everyone, including the attorney representing the fleer, stated that the verdict was foreseeable. Although some people may not agree, the officers did react reasonably; therefore, the verdict was set in stone.
All in all, the common belief that justifiable homicide does not exist has been disproved. The morality behind his act may not always be justified depending on religious views; however, when looking at the law, homicide has the capability of being justified. When it comes to self-defense, there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before a case can be ruled in favor of justifiable homicide. Although people may assume that a court ruling self-defense during a homicide trial may be too lenient, there are certain stipulations; therefore, this ruling should not be seen as such. When people argue that homicide is not justifiable during self-defense, yet justifiable during war, they are creating a contradiction. Although the two circumstances differ greatly, the concept is generally similar and both justifiable under certain conditions. Lastly, without laws that justify law enforcement officers being able to shoot perpetrators, criminals would be able to more easily escape detainment and ultimately run havoc on innocent bystanders. Not only can homicide be accidental, but also justifiable; therefore, a person who argues otherwise will inevitably end up falling short.
The common belief that homicide can never be justified is quite arguable. Like many states, Kansas has joined the “stand-your-ground” movement by enacting the new law regarding the role self-defense plays in justifiable homicide. Kansas stands among 32 other states that have adopted a form of the Stand-Your-Ground Law (Love np). This law was first enacted in Florida in 2005 after a fatal shooting (Plumlee np). Although it has not been put into play much in Kansas, the law currently stands strong. Under this legislation, a person who is under attack is advised to run away before attempting to use any kind of force; however, if not possible, one is then able to use force in order to save themselves from further harm. Unless probable cause for an arrest exists, the individual would be immune to prosecution after harming, or even killing, a person; however, they would have to have acted strictly out of self-defense. Even the slightest implication stating otherwise would lead the individual to be prosecuted of murder. Many people argue that the line is too thin, and deciphering between right and wrong quickly becomes blurred. For this reason, the laws clearly state guidelines as to what is justifiable, and there is usually no exceptions made in order to benefit a certain circumstance. Along with the Stand-Your-Ground Law comes the Castle Doctrine. This law states that any person is allowed to use deadly force when threatened in a place they are entitled to be at, such as their home, cars, and even workplace (Garrett np). From state to state, this law has the power to differ greatly. What may be considered justifiable homicide in one state may end up being irrational manslaughter in the next. For example, in the state of Texas, attempting to retreat is not required when a criminal is attempting to break in, commit robbery, rape, or murder (Purves np). In contrast, states like California don't offer as much leeway. Their law does not cover using force on someone who is simply attempting to steal property; however, California's Castle Doctrine does cover using self-defense when a valid threat to one’s life is imposed (Purves np). In New York, the Castle Doctrine is not as strong as in these other states. Here, the law insists that the person attempt to retreat by any means necessary (Purves np). Their last option should always be to use force. So, for example, if a homeowner in New York shoots an intruder attempting to simply steal an item from inside the house he broke into, the homeowner would ultimately be convicted for their crime because the intruder did not attempt to harm anyone. The burglar would clearly face charges as well, but the homeowner wouldn't be off the hook for attempting to defend his belongings. Although this was an act of self-defense, some states might not see it as such. Even though New York’s Castle Doctrine is slightly stricter than in some other states, having any part of this law available could mean the difference between going to prison for life, or being granted an innocent verdict because of self-defense. If these laws were never enacted, many people would be locked up for simply trying to defend themselves within their own homes. According to Peter Hermann from The Baltimore Sun, there was a case in 2010 that ended with a dead body and a justified homicide court ruling (Hermann np). As this article stated, William Bozman awoke to find a strange man in his bedroom pointing a gun at his head (Hermann np). Not unlike Bozman, any rational person would have feared for their life at that exact moment in time. Not only had a complete stranger broken into his home, but he also had the audacity to threaten and point a gun at Bozman. There was a short feud between the two as the intruder demanded Bozman to open his safe and hand over whatever was inside. When presented with the opportunity, Bozman reached for his own gun and turned the tables on the intruder; however, the assailant was not fazed and decided to charge at Bozman. Fearing for his life, Bozman shot the gunman in the chest multiple times (Hermann np). After the trespasser slumped to the ground, Bozman quickly called the police. Because of the self-defense laws in Maryland, Bozman was not convicted of murder. If this law did not exist, Bozman would have been indicted for simply trying to protect his own home and ultimately his life. Because the intruder couldn’t seem to rationalize right from wrong, the situation could have only gone one of two ways: either Bozman was going to end up dead in his own home, or the circumstance could've played out exactly as it did. Although many people do not agree with a court ruling justifiable homicide, without this ruling, many people that were put in the same hostile situation as Bozman would have ended up in jail. In cases like this where a gun is involved, there is not much running a person can do, so fighting back is their only choice. Unlike William Bozman who was protected under a self-defense law, Bryan Spellers was not as fortunate. Bryan Spellers was 23 years old at the time he shot his stepfather (LaForgia np). Spellers allegedly shot his stepfather after a heated argument between the two escalated to a brutal fight between both Spellers’ mom and stepfather (Spellers 1117). According to Spellers, he felt as though his mother’s life was in danger; therefore, he chose to risk his future by shooting rather than risk something happening to his mother. Little did he know, his act of self-defense would ruin his life. When this case was taken to court, Spellers failed to file it under the Stand-Your-Ground law; instead, he proceeded with the case as though it were any other ordinary lawsuit (LaForgia np). This, alongside the failure to have his mother testify, put Spellers at a strong disadvantage. If Spellers’ attorney had not failed to provide the mother’s statement, the overall outcome might have vastly differed; however, that was not the case. Ultimately, Spellers was sentenced to a 20 year incarceration for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Spellers 1118). If the law would have played out as it was supposed to, Spellers would not have had to go to prison for saving his mother’s life.
Nobody can validly state that they don't believe in justifiable homicide, yet believe in war.
Although soldiers kill members of the opposing side for the greater good, their actions are still considered justified homicide; however, some guidelines have been set in order to help differentiate what is justifiable from what is unjustifiable. According to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentional attacks on a civilian population, harm to defenseless persons, and the misuse of a flag truce all fall under the category of being unjustifiable (Rome Statute of I.C.C. 5+). As long as the soldier were to be following orders at the time of the killing, the law states it is justifiable. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought (“Murder”). In order for homicide to be legal in a war setting, the soldier must commit the killing by following all of the set rules. A killing can not legally occur if the person were to be clearly unarmed and not dangerous. A killing of that sort could occur, but it would not technically be justifiable. If it weren't for these laws, every soldier that went out and killed someone would have to be charged for murder. This clearly doesn't make sense by any means; therefore, justified homicide is utterly relevant in this
matter.
There have been many cases where soldiers return home and come to question their actions. Some may even go into depression after not being able to come to terms with how many lives they had to take. Pete Kilner ended up questioning his judgements and went on a quest for answers. He quickly found out that no one could give him a direct answer as to why killing other people in combat was moral. Kilner set up a scenario that fairly explains his philosophy. He stated that everyone is entitled to an imaginary bubble that encircles them. Hypothetically speaking, this bubble represents someone's moral intuition. If person A were to be walking down the street and on a whim decided to pull a gun on person B, than person A would have automatically given up his very own bubble; furthermore, this would lead person B to be able to use force against person A because person A gave up not only his own “bubble of rights,” but somebody else's as well (Kilner np). The point he is trying to make is that the victim, person B, violated no rights because he did not have the choice of having his bubble popped. Kilner states that during war, soldiers on both sides have lost their hypothetical bubble and, therefore, are killing justifiably (Kilner np). For Kilner, justifying a killing would have to mean much more than just putting the blame on the commands that were given to him. Many people seem to hold two contradictory beliefs: killing is wrong, yet necessary during war. Timothy Kudo from The Washington Post made a great statement saying, “Many veterans are unable to reconcile such actions in war with the biblical commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’” (Kudo np). He also made a valid point when he reiterated that our wars are fought with volunteers; therefore, they are avoidable (Kudo np). Because these wars are avoidable, it seems to imply that people are signing up to kill. This, however, is usually not the case. Although some of these points may not be easily reasoned with in someone's mind, they are backed up by the many laws stating that homicide is justifiable in war. The journey one must take in order to clear things up in their mind about this issue is to each their own; however, if one is worried about the legality of their actions in war, they need not fret because as long as everything was done by the books, the law will be on their side.
Recently, several controversial cases of law enforcement killing perpetrators have arouse in several states. Unlike most killings, some of these are considered justifiable. According to the Justifiable Use of Force Statute, a couple of situations exist in which a law enforcement officer is able to lawfully use deadly force. A couple of these situations include firing a weapon at a vehicle in which a perpetrator is riding, shooting a deadly weapon at a prisoner attempting to escape from being detained, and when an officer reasonably believes a fleeing person is planning on causing harm to an officer or another person; however, if an officer where to use deadly force rather than less-lethal munition, the killing would no longer be justifiable (Justifiable Use of Force Statute 776.05+). In any case, using a taser or pepper spray would be recommended rather than inflicting deadly force.
Law enforcement officers may be put into difficult situations. Being able to decipher between the appropriate moments in which to use deadly force and when to use less-lethal force is critical. Just because a person is scared does not give them the right to automatically pull a trigger. Hypothetically speaking, if a police officer were to answer a call for a bank robbery, a conflict between him and the perpetrator might arise. In this scenario, the bank robber attempts to shoot the police officer out of fear of being caught; therefore, the officer then has the right to defend himself and his fellow officers by shooting back. If the officer were to kill the bank robber, it would just be a routine case. Although tragic, the killing would be considered justifiable in a court setting. Killing the robber might have stopped him from hurting anyone else as he attempted to escape detainment; therefore, the officer chose to do the correct thing.
According to an article from Tracy Weber at The Los Angeles Times, four officers were not convicted of any crimes in a controversial case back in 1996. The four officers were chasing a runaway man at almost 100 miles per hour (Weber np). Throughout the 32 minute chase and standoff, the officers shot a combined total of approximately 30 gunshots (Weber np). The man they were chasing, Hong Kim, could not be stopped, up until the moment the officers cornered him; however, he refused to be detained and decided to attempt to run over the officers. At that moment, the officers decided to open fire on Kim for fear of their lives. Unsurprisingly, when the case was taken to court, the court ruled this homicide justifiable. Everyone, including the attorney representing the fleer, stated that the verdict was foreseeable. Although some people may not agree, the officers did react reasonably; therefore, the verdict was set in stone.
All in all, the common belief that justifiable homicide does not exist has been disproved. The morality behind his act may not always be justified depending on religious views; however, when looking at the law, homicide has the capability of being justified. When it comes to self-defense, there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before a case can be ruled in favor of justifiable homicide. Although people may assume that a court ruling self-defense during a homicide trial may be too lenient, there are certain stipulations; therefore, this ruling should not be seen as such. When people argue that homicide is not justifiable during self-defense, yet justifiable during war, they are creating a contradiction. Although the two circumstances differ greatly, the concept is generally similar and both justifiable under certain conditions. Lastly, without laws that justify law enforcement officers being able to shoot perpetrators, criminals would be able to more easily escape detainment and ultimately run havoc on innocent bystanders. Not only can homicide be accidental, but also justifiable; therefore, a person who argues otherwise will inevitably end up falling short.