Honest Officer, It Was Self Defense!!!

Besides the tried and true defense to a crime of "some other dude did it" (SODDI), the most often used defense to a crime involving assault behavior is self defense. It is the oldest defense on the books. As long as man has been around, he has enjoyed the right of self defense. All societies have recognized the right and nations now consider self defense to be their right, even to the point of a preemptive strike. In other words, if a country is reasonably sure another country or, these days, group is about to attack, they have the right to strike first and defend their action as self defense. Think of it as a defense of necessity. The defense of self allows force to be used to prevent a greater harm, namely unlawful harm to you.

As a general rule, however, people do not have the right to a preemptive strike, irrespective of how strong the evidence is they are about to be attacked. Self defense as a defense to a criminal prosecution for a crime requires the attack on the person be imminent. Must be happening right this second!. And, using a term nations use, the force used in self defense must be proportional to the level of force used in the attack. An attempted slap in the face does not allow you to whip out your machine pistol and cut them down with a hail of bullets in mid swing. I know, they were stupid and brought a fist to a gun fight and deserve to die.....can't do it and if you do, you are going to prison.

If, however, an attacker uses deadly force upon you, you may use deadly force upon them in self defense providing that" 1) your subjective perception was that that level of force in self defense was needed and 2) the act and amount of force was objectively reasonable. So here's the deal, the local neighbor kid is outside in your driveway and he is unbolting your mag wheels from your car. Tempting is it may be, you can not just gun him down to prevent the theft of your mags. On the other hand, a person is entitled to use reasonable force in the protection of their personal property. What level of force is allowed turns on the facts. What is clear is deadly force may never be used solely to protect property,

Now, people (and law students) sometimes get confused in the distinction between defense of property and the defense of habitation. If someone breaks into your home while you are there, the common law allowed the use of deadly force to protect habitation. A persons home was his castle and highly protected under the law. Over time, the law has been modified by case law where it has had the affect of requiring the homeowner to be able to prove, not just that someone broke in to their home while they were there, but also that they were in "reasonable fear of their life". So much has this enraged homeowners charged with murder or manslaughter after they killed a burglar, that many states have enacted "castle laws" These statues say, simply, that there exists a legal presumption the person who broke into your home while you are there IS a threat to your personal safety. This presumption allows the existence of this "fact" be recognized by the court and the jury absent evidence to the contrary. These laws are good things and they make the safety and privacy of a persons home important issues and standards worthy of continued legal protection.

So really, self defense, defense of others and the defense of habitation are all first cousins of each other and as old as time. Just remember, you may defend yourself against an attack but that attack must be happening right now and the force you use must be reasonable and in proportion to the force used or attempted to be used against you. Oh..... and don't just drag the body inside, you will get caught faking the evidence...don't you all watch CSI?