He is a leading theorist in the areas of criminal law, criminal procedure, trial practice and techniques, legal ethics, and race theory.In North Carolina, according to a Statutory Castle Doctrine, a person has the right to use deadly force to defend their home, car or workplace from an imminent threat. Ronald Sullivan is a professor of law at Harvard Law School. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. "I didn't do anything wrong," Rittenhouse testified. In Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was also able to put in evidence that he was in reasonable fear of death. As a result, during his trial, all Zimmerman had to prove was that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin around and kill him without being liable for murder.īut, in a stand-your-ground state such as Florida, Zimmerman had a lawful right to patrol the neighborhood near Martin's home. Zimmerman was the sole survivor Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound. It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. This reaffirms the law's belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort. Only those with "clean hands" can benefit from this justification and avoid criminal liability.įinally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. A person's own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense.įourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification.
Third, the person's assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable, meaning that a supposed "reasonable person" would consider the threat to be sufficiently dangerous to put him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. For instance, a person who is assaulted cannot leave the scene, plan revenge later and conduct vigilante justice by killing the initial aggressor. The threat by the aggressor must be immediate. Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.įirst, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. Some states observe the controversial " stand your ground" doctrine, as in Georgia - or not, as in Wisconsin - further clouding the public's understanding on what constitutes an appropriate use of deadly force. Juries are then asked to determine whether a defendant's conduct is justified by principles of self-defense or whether the offender is criminally liable for homicide.Ĭomplicating matters is that each state has its own distinct homicide and self-defense laws. Self-defense arguments are often raised during trials involving loss of life. Like Rittenhouse, the three men claimed they were acting in self-defense. The Wisconsin jury disagreed, and its decision may portend a similar outcome in another high-profile case in Georgia, where three white men are on trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery after they claimed the Black man was a suspect in a rash of robberies. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create." In delivering its verdict, a Wisconsin jury decided that Rittenhouse's conduct was justified, even though the prosecution argued that he provoked the violent encounter and, therefore, should not be able to find refuge in the self-defense doctrine.Īs prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument: "When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense.
0 kommentar(er)
