Let's say I initiate a fight with someone, & during the course of the fight they get the better of me. But what my opponent doesn't know is that I have a gun. When he's getting the better of me, I pull my gun & shoot & kill him.
Can I claim self defense in a court of law later? Do I have a case?
We've got a few lawyers here. I'd love to hear their thoughts as well as everyone else's.
IANAL, this is not legal advice.
Let us first say that one can
'claim' self-defense in court if one wishes, regardless of the circumstances. Self-defense is a legal defense to mount. That does not mean it will be accepted by a grand jury, a jury, a judge, or a court. The accused can claim whatever they wish. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is untrue.
As to whether or not one has a case, the issue then revolve around both the intent of the shooter and the actual actions taken by both parties, I think.
For example; if the shooter intended to confront the victim, and a fight ensued, I would opine that the shooter would still have the right of self-defense. They may have initiated the contact, but they did not intend to fight the victim.
If the shooter intended to fight the victim, but found themselves in a situation in which they were legitimately in fear of being killed, I would opine that they might still have the right of self-defense, but it becomes much more complicated. Was the motive of the shooter to cause the victim to put the shooter in fear of his life and therefore give him a 'legal excuse' to kill? In other words, was he luring the victim into a fight so that he could kill him, intended that outcome all along? That might be the case, but I suspect it would be hard to prove.
It could also be hard to prove that the shooter started the altercation. Without eyewitnesses, it is one man's word against another. When one of the men is dead, there is little but forensic evidence to challenge the statement made by the shooter, which would tend to have to be taken at face value.
But getting back to the issue of self-defense...
There are too many variables to say that yes or no, a person engaged in a physical altercation still has the right of self-defense in general.
Suppose you get into an argument a person who appears to be of lesser ability than you and you start to fight. You are confident that you can win, but suddenly he begins to get the upper hand. He gets you on the ground, and begins to bash your head against the pavement, and you realize you're about to lose consciousness. You legitimately fear that once you are unconscious, the person you are fighting intended to continue bashing your head on the ground until you are dead. If you happen to have a weapon in your pocket, which you were not planning to use, are you allowed to do so in your own defense? I would argue that you can; you don't give up the right to defend your own life, even if you are engaged in a risky and foolhardy fight. You still have the right to defend yourself. However, others may see it differently.
Let's just turn the situation around and see if it makes sense looking at it from the point of view of the victim. Let's say you are approached by a much larger man and he begins to fight you; let's even say he throws the first punch. You defend yourself, and you begin to get the upper hand. You get him on the ground and begin to bash his head into the concrete. You're afraid that if you stop, he'll get up and do the same to you, so you keep going. You have no idea he is armed. Now, from the point of view of the victim, if you bash his head on the pavement until he dies, are you guilty of any crime? If he takes action to stop you from killing him, is he guilty of any crime? What if the victim threw the first punch instead of the shooter, does that change anything?
But let's twist it a bit more. Suppose that you're at home and someone kicks in the door and attempts to rob you. You have a gun in your pocket, but are loathe to kill anyone. But you also do not want to be tied up and robbed, so you attack the man physically. However, he's stronger than you and soon you fear he is going to kill you. So you draw your weapon and shoot him as a last resort. Self-defense, or did you give up the right to self-defense when you choose to hit him instead of just shooting him?
I see lots of gray area here.
In general, and in my opinion, when a physical altercation ensues, self-defense claims become a lot more difficult to prove. However, that does not mean that a person who engages in a fight voluntarily no longer has the right of self-defense to keep themselves from being killed; it just means it is much more difficult to demonstrate that was the case.
What makes it even murkier is that conviction of a criminal offense in the USA requires what is called
'beyond a reasonable doubt'. What that means in practice is that a judge or jury must believe that there is little to no chance, almost zero, that a person accused of a crime might actually be innocent of it. When two men offer conflicting testimony and there is no other evidence, one of them might well be lying, but there is no way to determine by legal means who is lying and who is telling the truth; the accused may well go free whether they are guilty or not. There are other factors that might be considered, such as the reputation of the men; say one is a police officer and one is a convicted felon. Or there may be eyewitness testimony or other evidence such as statements made and legally recorded by police by one of the men, or forensic evidence that would tend to prove that events could not have transpired the way one of the men claimed. But absent all of that, if it is my word against yours, there will not be a criminal conviction in general terms. And if one of the men is dead and therefore cannot testify, then there is not much the police can do to disprove the statements of the shooter.
