Which of these situations are self defense?

[flyingfish]

kimmielittle:
The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.

The key word is Reasonable

Wouldn’t this exclude the sleepwalker, or the man whose nervous system is being controlled by another, or the man whose heartbeat has been connected by another to a machine that’s killing you?

Those would not be an example of unlawful force. As in all three examples, the man would not be committing a crime.

If you use that definition, it would not be self defense to kill him.

 

[kimmielittle]

Wouldn’t this exclude the sleepwalker, or the man whose nervous system is being controlled by another, or the man whose heartbeat has been connected by another to a machine that’s killing you?

Those would not be an example of unlawful force. As in all three examples, the man would not be committing a crime.

If you use that definition, it would not be self defense to kill him.

No, the self defense - is used against the attacking body. It is the attacking body that is issuing reasonable malicious intent …that I have to defend against.

Now …if you went looking for the ‘control’ the person controlling the body attacking you ] That is your premeditation. Your malicious intent - You become the attacker.

 

[flyingfish]

No, the self defense - is used against the attacking body. It is the attacking body that is issuing reasonable malicious intent …that I have to defend against.

Now …if you went looking for the ‘control’ the person controlling the body attacking you ] That is your premeditation. Your malicious intent - You become the attacker.

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that it would be okay to kill the body that is being controlled by someone else and has no will to kill you, but not okay to go after the controller?

How does that work?

 

[kimmielittle]

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that it would be okay to kill the body that is being controlled by someone else and has no will to kill you, but not okay to go after the controller?

How does that work?

Self defense is used to protect from immediate responsible perceived malicious intent.

When I go after someone after the immediate threat is gone some remote controller ]…I become the attacker …I’m no longer defending my immediate self. Or using self defense.

If I kill my attacker during his attack. It’s justified assuming I have proved reasonable fear for my life and responsible effort i.e, such as the ‘backup law’ - in some states it’s required to backup to the wall - this supposedly proves you are not the aggressor ].

 

[Lypher]

I am no lawyer but the basic legal definition seems to be…

"
Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. "

From.: lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

Or at least that would dictate burden of proof and the fine lines would likely be wishey washey and were lawyers would make their money trying to convince a jury.

God Bless…

 

[Ron_Conte]

In order to be moral, any act must have three good fonts of morality:

1. good intention
2. good moral object
3. the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences

If you kill in self-defense, the moral object is good. But the other fonts must also be good in order to avoid sin.

Also, the personal guilt or innocence of your attacker does not detemine if the moral object is good.

Examples: (1) Your neighbor on one side of the street is a very sinful man, who has publicly admitted to committing many mortal sins, and who openly states that he is unrepentant; he is guilty of many gravely immoral acts. But he never threatens you with any type of grave harm, and so you may not kill him. Though he is guilty of many sins and crimes, he is innocent of any grave aggression against you, and so to kill him would be to kill an innocent person. He is guilty of many things, but he is innocent of attacking you.

(2) Your neighbor on the other side of the street is a veritable living Saint; by all accounts he is full of every virtue, and no one accuses him of any offense. But one day, afflicted by a severe psychological illness, he attacks you with deadly force. You may morally kill him in self-defense (if there is no other way to save your own life), even though he is, as they say, ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’ Your attacker is without any culpability in the sense of actual mortal sin; his soul and his life are innocent. But in the immediate situation he has chosen (in this case without free will) to assault your life with deadly force. He is committing an objective grave attack against you, though without the culpability of actual sin.