Realities of Self Defense Pleas
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2000 7:05 pm
A post on this forum by Student and the intense interst in this subject matter demonstrated in Canna Sensei's forums, prompted me to make some comments.
A particular homacide case was alluded to in the topic of De-myth-tified posted by Panther.
My comments on this case are strictly from my memory, both of the trial and conviction, and the appelate process.
Massachusetts law applied the so called "reaonable man" theory in cases of justifiable homacide.
A divorced woman resided with her children in a house that she owned. She had recently "broken up" with a gentleman friend, who had a past record, was abusive, and had threatend to kill her and her children many times.
One day he forced his way into the house and in a drunken rage told her he was going to kill her and her children.
He came after her and she retreated, first taking her children with her, and then grabing a rifle.
They retreated to the basement of her home pursued by the ex-paramor who screamed at her that he was going to kill them all.
She held up the rifle and told him to cease and desist to no avail and continued down the basement stairs cussing and threatening, until he was killed by a single shot from the rifle.
She was found guilty of second degree homacide and sentenced to state prison.
Her appeals ended in the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when that court ruled that the conviction was proper because the evidence of the facts justified the conviction.
The only fact that was important to the case, at this point was that the basement had a door leading to the outside.
The Court in effect ruled that she had not exhausted her duty to retreat, and that her use of deadly force was not reaonable in the circumstance of availability of the basment door egress!
What prompted my interest in this case was the fact that the law had been interpreted in a manner exceeding the strictest application of the Code of Bushido relative to the equation of deadly force versus the need to retreat.
As stated by Panther, Governor Dukakis, would not grant a pardon, a great upheaval prompted by the bizare circumstances of the case prompted a change in legislation, but the woman remained in jail until pardoned by Governor Edward King.
The requirement of the use of reasonable force is still an necessary element of a successful defense.
The theory of the myth that a "man's home is his castle", nevertheless persists; the change enacted by the legislature does not permit the killing of a person who has commited the felony of Breaking and Entering, without the further justification of the action taken to stop the felonious conduct of the perpertrator.
I think that I like the attiude of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in these matters, as quoted in this forum by Student.
We will develop this subject further.
A particular homacide case was alluded to in the topic of De-myth-tified posted by Panther.
My comments on this case are strictly from my memory, both of the trial and conviction, and the appelate process.
Massachusetts law applied the so called "reaonable man" theory in cases of justifiable homacide.
A divorced woman resided with her children in a house that she owned. She had recently "broken up" with a gentleman friend, who had a past record, was abusive, and had threatend to kill her and her children many times.
One day he forced his way into the house and in a drunken rage told her he was going to kill her and her children.
He came after her and she retreated, first taking her children with her, and then grabing a rifle.
They retreated to the basement of her home pursued by the ex-paramor who screamed at her that he was going to kill them all.
She held up the rifle and told him to cease and desist to no avail and continued down the basement stairs cussing and threatening, until he was killed by a single shot from the rifle.
She was found guilty of second degree homacide and sentenced to state prison.
Her appeals ended in the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when that court ruled that the conviction was proper because the evidence of the facts justified the conviction.
The only fact that was important to the case, at this point was that the basement had a door leading to the outside.
The Court in effect ruled that she had not exhausted her duty to retreat, and that her use of deadly force was not reaonable in the circumstance of availability of the basment door egress!
What prompted my interest in this case was the fact that the law had been interpreted in a manner exceeding the strictest application of the Code of Bushido relative to the equation of deadly force versus the need to retreat.
As stated by Panther, Governor Dukakis, would not grant a pardon, a great upheaval prompted by the bizare circumstances of the case prompted a change in legislation, but the woman remained in jail until pardoned by Governor Edward King.
The requirement of the use of reasonable force is still an necessary element of a successful defense.
The theory of the myth that a "man's home is his castle", nevertheless persists; the change enacted by the legislature does not permit the killing of a person who has commited the felony of Breaking and Entering, without the further justification of the action taken to stop the felonious conduct of the perpertrator.
I think that I like the attiude of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in these matters, as quoted in this forum by Student.
We will develop this subject further.