Case Law and Statutory Law behind Self-Defense and the Use of Deadly Force
Research the case law and statutory law behind self-defense and the use of deadly force. What does the case law reveal that an average citizen can use in terms of self-defense and deadly force? How is that different than a law enforcement officer? Provide a detailed analysis of the case law where the court’s have grappled with these issues. Focus primarily on the Supreme Court cases on this issue.
Case Law and Statutory Law behind Self-Defense and the Use of Deadly Force
Self-defense is the right for an individual to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of necessary counteracting level of force or violence in his or her defense. The action to be considered self-defense must be justified based on different jurisdictions or statutory laws, but can be expanded or modified by courts based on case-by-case. Self-defense is commonly a defense to battery, assault, and criminal homicide since the actions involve the use of force. When an individual uses deadly force in the act of self-defense, special requirements are mostly considered to justify the use of deadly force. Deadly force is the use of any force that has the capability of potentially killing. Deadly force is not considered so only when an individual dies when it is used but also when an individual uses a gun, knife, vehicle, or even bare hands as a self-defense mechanism. There are several case law and statutory laws behind self-defense and the use of deadly force. This paper evaluates several case las and statutory laws to identify what an average citizen can use in terms of self-defense and deadly force. The paper also covers the difference between law enforcement officers and citizens in terms of self-defense and the use of deadly force. Lastly, the paper analyzes different case laws in which the courts have grappled with the issues of self-defense and the use of deadly force.
The Basic Elements of Self-Defense
According to the Model Penal Code § 3.04(1), self-defense is justifiable when the actor believes that the force used is immediately necessary for the objective of protecting himself against another person use of unlawful force on the present occasion. However, o successfully prove the self-defense claim, the defendant must be able to demonstrate four or at least three of the four elements of self-defense in the action of protecting himself. The four elements of self-defense include the defendant proving that he was confronted with an unprovoked attack. The imminent of threat to injury must also be proved by the defendant. The defendant is also expected to prove that the self-defense level of force used was objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. The fourth element of self-defense that the defendant must prove is the presence of objectively reasonable fear that the other person was going to injure or kill them unless they used self-defense.
Provocation
The provocation rule of self-defense provides that the defendant initiate an attack against another with the exception that the defendant raised in the circumstance acted in self-defense only after the other individual responded with excessive force, or if the defendant withdrew from the attack and the attacker persisted leading to the defendant to act in self-defense. Excessive force exception in provocation in some jurisdictions holds that an individual cannot respond to an attack of the defendant using excessive force. The case of State v. Belgard, 1982 provide a demonstration of excessive force exception, whereby the defendant Alton Belgard had used excessive force to respond to a nondeadly force that Saucier had used on Belgard when he pushed him against the wall. It is only allowed to use deadly force in self-defense if the attack is initiated in a deadly force. According to the New York Penal Law Section 35.15, use of deadly force in self-defense of a person based on provocation can be justified in the process that the defendant who acts as the initial aggressor withdraws from the attack and provide communication of withdrawal of the attack (N.Y. Penal Law, 2019). However, after the attacked individual persists using force even after the defendant’s withdrawal, then the defendant is justified to use force depending on the circumstances.
Imminence
To support a claim of self-defense actions, the threat faced must have been imminent in the form that the defendant or the person he was defending in fear of immediate harm. Most jurisdictions base the defense of self-defense in specific situations such as in a domestic violence situation where a husband uses force or violence against the defendant regularly creating a threat of imminent harm daily. Therefore, in a jurisdiction that recognizes battered wife defense, then the defendant would not be held liable if she uses force against her abusive husband as self-defense in a situation where immediate harm is not necessary. In Moran v. Ohio (1984), the petitioner Moran who was convicted by the Ohio jury appealed in the U.S. Supreme Court for the murder of her husband. Moran asserted on trial that he acted in self-defense as a result of repeated ad brutal beatings that created an immediate threat to her life. The Due Process Clause, according to the defendant prohibited the State to punish her for the murder as the Clause includes battered wife defense. Average citizens should have an understanding of which attack is imminent and which one is a threat to future harm. In a threat to future harm, one has plenty of time to report to law enforcement so that the threatening individual can be incapacitated by arrest or prosecution.
Proportionality
For the defendant to claim self-defense, he or she should be able to prove that the degree of forced use was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Proportionality requirements mostly focus on the deadly force and how it is justified legally. Under common law, deadly force can be employed in self-defense when the actor under the circumstance is justified that using deadly force is the only option to defend against an attack when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force. Another justification for the necessary use of deadly force is when the actor believes that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force. Therefore, deadly force can be used in self-defense when a reasonable person faces an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or a serious felony such as kidnapping and sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat (La Fond, 1983). The doctrine of necessity provides laws that aim at providing the rules that govern the use of force in self-defense, whereby it sets the limits in which one can respond with deadly force when under attack. The limitation is to ensure that the innocent victim does not inflict the purported victim more harm than what he would have suffered when attacked. Therefore, the proportionality element of self-defense insured that no greater harm would be suffered by society than the harm that was threatened by the aggressor. For instance, the aggressor’s death based on a threat of physical battery to the victim.
Duty to Retreat
Duty to retreat is a doctrine that is value-based clarification on necessity, which holds that the defendant must consider the possibility of retreating if there is an objectively reasonable belief that he or she might face serious bodily injury or death from the attacker, hence retreat would not unreasonably increase the likelihood of getting injured or death. According to the Model Penal Code, the use of deadly force cannot be justifiable under the duty to retreat doctrine if the actor knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of involving deadly force with complete safety by retreating. However, a majority of U.S. jurisdictions have eliminated the retreat doctrine in self-defense by implementing the stand-your-ground statutory. Other jurisdictions incorporate both stand-your-ground and retreat, whereby, if the imminent threat does not involve deadly force and there is the opportunity to retreat to avoid harm, the defendant retains the duty to retreat, however, if the imminent threat involves use of deadly force that might cause death or serious injury to the defendant, then there is absolute justification for the defendant to stand ground for self-defense even if it involves use of deadly force (Gruber, 2017). Another exception for retreat doctrine is in jurisdictions that follow the castle doctrine. The doctrine prohibits the obligation of one fleeing their home in the face of an invading attack, providing absolute justification and immunity in the process that the defendant used deadly force against an attacker who unlawfully entered the defendant dwelling to commit a physical force related crime.
Objectively Reasonable Fear
Objectively reasonable fear applies to all situations of self-defense, whereby, the defendant can claim self-defense only if a reasonable person in the situation of the defendant would believe that action of self-defense used by the defendant is necessary to avoid serious injury or death. Common law stipulates that those who are unreasonably mistaken in the use of deadly force in self-defense are not considered guilty of murder, although they may be found guilty of either negligent homicide or manslaughter. The determination of how objective or subjective the reasonableness fear should be, and whether reasonableness equates with typicality or normative desirability must be reflected to ensure the person reasonableness does not simply reflect existing unfair hierarchies. The jury must determine if the reason is objectively fear, weather reasonableness equates normative, or if the defendant’s beliefs necessity, imminence, or retreat will map to their race, socioeconomic status, and gender more than individual circumstances. For instance, in cases such as Goetz and Zimmerman, where four black youths were shot by a subway vigilante based on the concept of reasonable racist for fear of black men (Gruber, 2017). Such an argument cannot be accepted as objective reasonableness since one cannot believe that harm is imminent and defensive force is necessary based on race. Therefore, an average citizen must ensure that the objectively reasonable fear exists for the use of force to apply in self-defense.
Stand Your Ground Laws
More than thirty states in the United States have adopted the statue of stand your ground rule which protects defendants who use deadly force against their aggressor without first attempting to retreat against a charge of criminal homicide. When the Florida jury in 2013, acquitted George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin through shooting based on the Stand Your Ground Law, it generated a political debate that provided the doctrine of Stand Your Ground to obscure its purpose, impact on law, role in self-defense. For Stand Your Ground doctrine to be applied in self-defense circumstances, it must be in line with the core elements of self-defense. The defendant, when attacked in his or her home, can use force in self-defense based on the Stand Your Ground rule that allows one to defend himself or herself when attacked in their residence. In People v. Tomlins, in the New York 1914 case, in the explanation of Castle Doctrine, Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated that “It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his dwelling is bound to retreat … If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack” (Ward, 2015). Stand Your Ground claim can also be permitted not only in cases where there was honest and reasonable belief by the defendant about the assailant conscious purpose of killing, but also the claim would stand in cases where the defendant used deadly force in self-defense against an aggressor who attempted to commit serious felonies such as rape, burglary, robbery, or kidnapping upon the defendant or defendant’s property. However, in situation where the defendant uses deadly force in self-defense, whereby the defendant is at fault in creating the situation that resulted to necessity of using deadly force, or the defendant was the initial aggressor and did not withdraw prior to use of deadly force, then the right to stand your ground rule cannot be acquitted to the defendant.
Self-Defense and Use of Deadly Force by a Law Enforcement Officer
The Division of Criminal Justice has the responsibility of ensuring law enforcement officers use deadly physical force appropriately during their performance of duty. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly physical force under statutory standards but only when the officer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary for that circumstance. The officer can use deadly force when he or she believes that it is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly force (Coppolo, 2008). The law enforcement officer is also allowed to use deadly force in arresting or preventing an escape of someone the offer reasonably consider to be dangerous to the public safety, the one that has committed or attempted to commit a felony that s associated with the threat of injury, death, to other individuals or himself.
Two major Supreme Court decisions are considered as a determination of setting a framework for law enforcement officers’ use of deadly force and self-defense. Law enforcement officers according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, are allowed to shoot a suspect to prevent him from escaping, but the officer involved in the shooting must have a problem cause to believe that the suspect poses a dangerous threat to the public. The Tennessee v. Garner case involves the shooting of a 15-year-old boy by police officers as he tried to flee from a burglary. However, despite the court considering that law enforcement officers cannot shoot every felon that tries to escape, they considered the job of the officers in the circumstance, which was to protect the public from violence (Lopez, 2018). In the circumstance, the officers had to stop the fleeing violent individual no matter what kind of force was in use to protect the public. Another circumstance that the officers are allowed to shoot is in their self-defense, or defense of another person against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. The officer must prove the objectively reasonable in conduction gather actions. For instance, in the case of Graham v. Connor, a man survives the encounter with police officers after being treated roughly, his face was shoved into the car hood, and his leg was broken during the encounter. The court ignored the fact on how Graham was treated by Officer Connor instead focused on establishing whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in the light of the facts and circumstances confronting Graham, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation. Therefore, the difference between an average citizen and the law enforcement officer in terms of the use of deadly force and self-defense is that the officers are given the authority to use deadly force frequently based on the circumstance, while citizens are restricted to specific circumstances that one has to use deadly force.
In conclusion, the paper provides different case law and statutory laws that can be sued by an average citizen in terms of self-defense and deadly force. Major aspects that an average citizen should consider in self-defense are the four major elements that include provocation, imminent of the threat, degree of force, and objectively reasonable fear. One should also consider some of the common laws such as Stand Your Ground and Duty to Retreat when facing circumstances that require self-defense. The paper also justifies the use of deadly force that average citizens should consider before using deadly force as a self-defense mechanism.
References
Coppolo, G. (2008, February 1). Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Officers. OLR Research Report. Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm
Gruber, A. (2017). The Duty to Retreat in Self-Defense Law and Violence against Women. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.5
La Fond, J. (1983). The Case for Liberalizing the Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=sulr
Lopez, G. (2018, November 14). Police can use deadly force if they merely perceive a threat. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938226/police-shootings-killings-law-legal-standard-garner-graham-connor
N.Y. Penal Law (2019, February 3). New York Penal Law Section 35.15 – Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. Onecle. Retrieved from https://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN035.15_35.15.html
Moran v. Ohio, No. 98SC858 (1984). Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Tristan TOLER, Respondent. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1018064.html
State v. Belgard, 410 So.2d 720 (1982). Supreme Court of Louisiana. Retrieved from https://www.leagle.com/decision/19821130410so2d7201997.xml
Ward, C. (2015). “Stand Your Ground” and Self Defense. Faculty Publications. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=facpubs

Published by
Write
View all posts