When does self-defence go too far?

PzKfW IVe said:

Not if, say, he is on the floor, unconscious due to blood loss and shock.

Click to expand...

Im not a doctor does that mean while im dialing 911 he wont wake up and proceed to kill me again?
I mean if I had a gun I could just aim at him thats one thing, but with my axe if he gets up I could miss then its me who dies.

again IMO if he showed up at my house to kill me I deem him a threat until he stops twitching
Theres no logical reason to trust him when my means of protection isnt so full proof (an ax)

Self defense goes too far in a lot of cases. In this one, I really don't think it did. But when, for example, you have an unarmed burglar who posed no threat to the resident entering a house being shot and killed, that is simply too far. Most states now have amended castle doctrines to allow manslaughter charges for people who go too far in self defense.

Gargantuan said:

Self defense goes too far in a lot of cases. In this one, I really don't think it did. But when, for example, you have an unarmed burglar who posed no threat to the resident entering a house being shot and killed, that is simply too far. Most states now have amended castle doctrines to allow manslaughter charges for people who go too far in self defense.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this, who determines he is no threat and how?
Should I ask?

What if I come out my bedroom at the end of the hall, the perp sees me and runs
BUT 2/3rds down the hall way is my daughters room, how do I know he wont go in there and try to kid nap her? use her for a shield? threaten her life or simply run her over because she decided to come out of her room also?

The point with saying no threat is that it is asking a person to make a GUESS in a situation that is highly emotional, full of fear and full of unknowns.

Its an almost impossible task in some cases.

Centrist77 said:

I disagree with this, who determines he is no threat and how?
Should I ask?

What if I come out my bedroom at the end of the hall, the perp sees me and runs
BUT 2/3rds down the hall way is my daughters room, how do I know he wont go in there and try to kid nap her? use her for a shield? threaten her life or simply run her over because she decided to come out of her room also?

The point with saying no threat is that it is asking a person to make a GUESS in a situation that is highly emotional, full of fear and full of unknowns.

Its an almost impossible task in some cases.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, but still, most states have amended their castle doctrines to include provisions against excessive force. Once the shooting is investigated, and they determine that you did not first instruct the burglar to freeze or just exit your home, and you just fired on the guy when he came in your window, then you will be charged. Check out castle doctrine on wiki or some other site for more details.

Gargantuan said:

That's a good point, but still, most states have amended their castle doctrines to include provisions against excessive force. Once the shooting is investigated, and they determine that you did not first instruct the burglar to freeze or just exit your home, and you just fired on the guy when he came in your window, then you will be charged. Check out castle doctrine on wiki or some other site for more details.

Click to expand...

Oh let me be clear, Im not doubting you on what the laws says, the law does say STUPID stuff in my opinion. Im saying the law is wrong because it demands a decision to be made where one most times logically can not and the gamble is my life and my families life.

Sorry government Im always betting on ME

Centrist77 said:

Im not a doctor does that mean while im dialing 911 he wont wake up and proceed to kill me again?

Click to expand...

When he does that, you can whack him again.
You can only use deadly force when you are directly threatened with bodily harm. Unconscious on the floor is not a threat.

Yes, Self-Defense can go to far. When you continue to increase the force needed to protect yourself comparitive to the necessity or potential reasonable risk, that's the case.

To me, in regards to a home invasion, there are three points where that's the case. If the individual is fleeing with clear intention to leave the area (not just retreating a bit to attack again), is unconsious, or is bound in some fashion. In all those cases, escallating to the level of severe bodily damage or death moves beyond the realm of self defense. In cases where the individual has been unarmed and is in a captive position (backed into a corner, on the ground, hands up, etc) I think a reasonable judgement needs to be made, as an individual like that could still potential pose a threat if they have a weapon concealed yet at the same tiime are clearly not as large of a threat as potentially earlier

Outside of those cases, in regards to a home evasion, there's little I would say doesn't consitute self defense. If someone enters your home it is entirely reasonable to assume a weapon is on them and take lethal force at that point up until such a point that one of the above scenarios is occuring, in which case its time to call the cops and let them deal with it.

In regards to something on the street, more common sense is needed. If a guy in a bar starts to try and fight you outside because he thought you were looking at his girl, its acceptable to punch back. It wouldn't be self defense that, one the guys down, you start kicking and stomping repeatedly to his head. If he's threatening or actually does produce a weapon of some sort however, then taking action up to a point where the above situations are met would be okay in my mind.

Ultimately though, if you honestly and truly feel your life is in danger, you do everything and anything you need and say to hell with the consequences because no consequence can be worse than the loss of your life or the life of your loved ones. If me killing someone who I honestly believe is trying to kill me or my wife gets me 5 years in prison I would think nothing of it.

Wrong thread.

PzKfW IVe said:

The key point:



To make any meaningful assessment of the situation, you need the particulars of this.

Click to expand...

How was he suppose to know when? He was scared and adrenalin was flowing.

PzKfW IVe said:

When he does that, you can whack him again.
You can only use deadly force when you are directly threatened with bodily harm. Unconscious on the floor is not a threat.

Click to expand...

and what if I miss and then he kills my daughter and me?

Im not trying to argue law Im saying what REASONABLE people are asked to do is wrong. He came into my house with the intent to kill me, as long as he is there if my only weapon is a club or ax etc I whack him until he stops twitching.

If I have a gun, yes i guess it is reasonable to just point it at him, an ax though isnt that safe.

it just irks me that he breaks into my house with the intent to kill me and Im asked to respect ANYTHING of his, **** HIM!

Infinite Chaos said:

Here's a story making local headlines in my region.


Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.

Click to expand...

OK, here is the thing. Six guys breaking into the house do deserve what they get. I am wasting zero pity on them. However, continuing to attack them after they where no longer a threat does make you guilty of a crime, as you have gone beyond self defense. Now I do have some pity for Bowman. He probably, once the adrenalin was flowing, not thinking absolutely clearly. Unfortunately for him, that does not absolve him if he continued to attack once the threat was gone.

Now, to be clear, I was not there, I don't know for sure what was in his mind, nor do I see the situation, so it is really impossible to judge for me this particular case. Going by the provided information and the fact that a jury was convinced, I suspect he did go too far. The jury convicting is key to me, as juries will tend to side with a homeowner in such a case, but that still is just a guess on my part.

I voted other. I need to know what happened before I can say if the sentence was right or not,

Camlon said:

-- I need to know what happened before I can say if the sentence was right or not,

Click to expand...

I have no secret other knowledge beyond what has happened and been reported.

I can understand why there are some suspicions something else happened - what were the other friends doing while this fight was happening at the doorway / how long was the general melee before the near fatal blows happened and the defendant supposedly went too far etc.

The newspapers link this to the story in Norfolk of a farmer laying in wait and shooting two burglars breaking into his home but I don't read that the defendant did this in this case. He was sitting watching TV, 6 men tried to break into his house and he defended his property and his life. I personally think as has been said that this was "thug" vs "thugs" and so the jury probably felt more inclined to convict him. There are echoes of another case though - Omari Roberts went to visit his mother and found her house being burgled. There was a confrontation and he stabbed one of the burglars, killing him. The other burglar was wounded but when the surviving burglar was questioned by police-the police decided to prosecute Roberts.

One year of hell later, the police dropped the charges but only when the surviving burglar confessed he'd lied in his statement.

I strongly feel that the weight of the law is still very much against the householder in this country.

Centrist77 said:

and what if I miss and then he kills my daughter and me?

Click to expand...

Nothing different than if you missed the first time.
You have every right to kill someone that it trying to kill you.
Once it is clear they have been incapacitated, as may be the case here, you no longer have that right.

StillBallin75 said:

IC, I have a few questions.

Why didn't they other five idiots just run when he axed his first victim?

I think that's when self-defence goes too far...when it ceases to be defensive and you are attacking/pursuing someone who is trying to escape.

Click to expand...

I don't know SB, there's been no hint that Bowman's friends in the house held anyone or were involved. All the local news reports say Bowman took the 6 men on himself and that he is now to be imprisoned for 5 years.

This is different from the case of two brothers Munir and Tokeer Hussain who were tied up in their home while their families threatened. The brothers broke free, chased the attackers and caught and beat one to a pulp. They were definitely safe when the attackers fled and their intention in the chase was to cause as much harm as possible. These two guys were sentenced for 30 months which is why I think Bowman's previous record had a part in him being sentenced for 5 years.

StillBallin75 said:

Dammit you turned me into a Brit...

Click to expand...

We'll teach you to talk proper Queen's english young man. :mrgreen:

PzKfW IVe said:

Nothing different than if you missed the first time.
You have every right to kill someone that it trying to kill you.
Once it is clear they have been incapacitated, as may be the case here, you no longer have that right.

Click to expand...

I agree and thats the point, who gets to say its "clear" and how to they determine it?

I if thier goal was to kill me as long as they are in my house and alive it isnt clear Im safe until they are dead.

Again I know the law is grey and disagrees but thats my issue, I think they law is wrong, I person breaking into my house to kill me should get any protection while in my house just cause he failed.

It's hard to know the full story. Maybe the gang members entered and were then dissuaded. Did they beg for their lives? Did some of them try to leave? What kind of dialogue took place? Did any of them have second thoughts when faced with lethal consequences?

I don't think the man should be sent to jail for defending himself, but karmically speaking what he did was not a good thing. At the moment of death all humans are the same... we are faced with the unknowns. He will have to live with the knowledge that he sent these men to their deaths, for the rest of his life. Even if he feels justified, he will remember.

I hope for his sake that he has no conscience.

Temporal said:

It's hard to know the full story. Maybe the gang members entered and were then dissuaded. Did they beg for their lives? Did some of them try to leave? What kind of dialogue took place? Did any of them have second thoughts when faced with lethal consequences?

I don't think the man should be sent to jail for defending himself, but karmically speaking what he did was not a good thing. At the moment of death all humans are the same... we are faced with the unknowns. He will have to live with the knowledge that he sent these men to their deaths, for the rest of his life. Even if he feels justified, he will remember.

I hope for his sake that he has no conscience.

Click to expand...

If it was me and I knew that i acted justly, meaning in my mind I never crossed the line of defense vs aggressor my conscience whouldnt be effected, id be proud I saved me and me family.

Id feel bad for thier families who have to deal with the loss but my conscience would be free and clear.

justabubba said:

his mistake was having an axe and allowing the intruder to survive to subsequently bring a suit as an aggrieved party

Click to expand...

Yep. In america its in your best interests that if you have to use deadly force then you better kill otherwise you often face civil and criminal lawsuits.

Infinite Chaos said:

Here's a story making local headlines in my region.


Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.

Click to expand...

This is actually very similar to what would happen in the US in most jurisdictions. The key issue is when, precisely, the attacker ceases to be a threat. As this is a question of fact, it would be determined by a jury. The standard a jury is meant to use in such a context is whether or not a reasonable person would consider themselves to be under threat of deadly assault (subjectively), and whether or not the person was, in fact, under such threat (objectively). If the answer is yes, the defendant/victim has the right to respond with deadly force. If, as the jury concluded in this case, the attacker no longer posed a deadly threat, and the victim/defendant continues to attack with deadly force, he is committing assault, and possibly attempted murder. This makes sense if you think about it. Here's a simpler example:

An armed, would-be robber breaks into my house and threatens me with a gun. I shoot him while he's pointing the gun at me. That's self defense. By contrast, say I knock the gun out of his hand, then knock him to the ground. Then I shoot him. That's not self defense, it's murder. It may seem just to some people, but the law cannot and does not support what amounts to individual citizens carrying out a death sentence on a would-be robber without benefit of a trial, etc. Apparently that's the situation with Mr. Axe Man.

A lot of people on this thread have been talking a lot about adrenaline, and how difficult it is to make a split second decision about such things, but that's exactly the sort of information a jury should (and probably would) take into consideration when weighing the actions of the defendant. Obviously we don't know everything about this case, but if the jury reached the conclusion that Axe dude was no longer under threat of deadly assault (and more importantly, that a reasonable person would not, under the circumstances, have perceived themselves to be under such a threat), they're presumably basing this on the evidence put forth at trial. This is the way the system is supposed to work. It's not perfect, it's certainly not simple, but it's better than any alternative I'm aware of.

Centrist77 said:

I if thier goal was to kill me as long as they are in my house and alive it isnt clear Im safe until they are dead.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Or at least it might be. For example (and I don't know if something like this happened in this case) what if your attacker is bleeding on the floor from two or three axe wounds, and no longer has full use of his arms? At that point, I think you can reasonably conclude that you're safe. What if the attacker's unconscious?

Infinite Chaos said:

Here's a story making local headlines in my region.


Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.

Click to expand...

How can you ask us this question when you're leaving out all the details we would need to derive an answer?

Edit:
Oh look at this...

....Witnesses heard “sickening thuds” as the axe blows connected, leaving Hall with horrific and life-threatening injuries, which included a fractured skull, as well as a broken arm and fingers.

Click to expand...

So the homeowner kept going after the threat stopped.

A firearm is so much more civilized.

scourge99 said:

Yep. In america its in your best interests that if you have to use deadly force then you better kill otherwise you often face civil and criminal lawsuits.

Click to expand...

That's another good reason to use a firearm over a melee weapon. The first axe swing (deadly force) was justified. Had he pulled a trigger instead of swung an axe, he could have killed the perp and it would have been legal. His mistake was disabling the threat instead of just killing him outright.

Jerry said:

That's another good reason to use a firearm over a melee weapon. The first axe swing (deadly force) was justified. Had he pulled a trigger instead of swung an axe, he could have killed the perp and it would have been legal. His mistake was disabling the threat instead of just killing him outright.

Click to expand...

I'm not a huge fan of guns in general (for reasons of practicality, mostly - I think a lot of people have an inflated belief in their ability to use guns effectively in situations like this one) but you're right - if Axe man had used a gun and killed the guy, he wouldn't be going to prison.

Redress said:

OK, here is the thing. Six guys breaking into the house do deserve what they get. I am wasting zero pity on them. However, continuing to attack them after they where no longer a threat does make you guilty of a crime, as you have gone beyond self defense. Now I do have some pity for Bowman. He probably, once the adrenalin was flowing, not thinking absolutely clearly. Unfortunately for him, that does not absolve him if he continued to attack once the threat was gone.

Now, to be clear, I was not there, I don't know for sure what was in his mind, nor do I see the situation, so it is really impossible to judge for me this particular case. Going by the provided information and the fact that a jury was convinced, I suspect he did go too far. The jury convicting is key to me, as juries will tend to side with a homeowner in such a case, but that still is just a guess on my part.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Obviously we need to ban assault'axes. Does anyone know if thus guy perchesed this axe from a licensed dealer, or did he use an axe-show loophole? This is just another example of why only the military, police and fire department need access to axes. Perhaps we can make some exceptions for hunting'axes, but you should still have to store your axe at the police department or hunting club.