First we need to define what self defense means in that state. Every state is different, since all states operate by the common law or penal code system. Generally though, self defense is using equal or less than means of protecting yourself against the criminal. In other words, If somebody is kicking your ass, using a knife or gun would be considered excessive. The only way to be justified in using lethal force is when a) your life is in immediate danger, AND b) you have exhausted all methods of escape. Again, the law varies state by state, but by hearing the DA on this case talk about the charges, it seems like they have this general idea.
Second, we need to define murder. Murder in the first degree is willingly, knowingly killing someone with malice intent. In other words, its premeditated murder if: "In one seconds, I will kill you", or "Im going to kill this person. .5 second later, I kill him. It is extremely hard to disprove this mindset in the court of law. Murder in the second degree is when you willingly, knowingly kill some with malice intent without premeditation.
Manslaughter. This can be used in many different ways. I will only describe what could be a plea bargain in this case. Heat of passion crimes fit under the umbrella of manslaughter. If I was a cop with a gun on my hip, and I walked into my house, and seeing my wife get nailed on the kitchen table, and shoot both of them, that is a heat of passion crime. In this case, a good defense would prove manslaughter is the correct charge, compared to second degree murder.
Alright, after looking at all the facts made public in this case, this is kinda a tuffy. The pharmacist was justified to use a weapon to deter the criminals. Him feeling like his life was in immediate danger, he shot one of the criminals in self defense. I believe this was justified.
Criminal was hit and injured, and victim attempted to apprehend other robber. Returning to the shot criminal, shots were put in him again. This is where the line is. Self defense ENDS when the threat is no longer existent, and using excessive force like this was a double no-no.
I think a good defense would argue in favor for a heat of passion crime, which fits under manslaughter, and/or they will try to disprove premeditation (murder 1). We can't possibly go into this mans head and know what he was thinking at that time. This is the responsibility of the psych during discovery.
I haven't heard anything about this, but is the living robber going to have the felony-murder rule apply to him?
(These facts are solid, Im helping my friend study for the state bar exam)
.)
