Maybe excuse wasn't the right term, English isn't my mother tongue.You don't understand. Self defense is not an EXCUSE. Because the MC acted in self defense against an attack with a deadly weapon by an attacker with the stated intent to kill, he is with in his rights to use whatever force he chooses, and can not be charged with murder. As stated a couple posts back, the MC has no legal obligation to spare Carter.
Theres no predicting what the Hillside legal system will decide to do, but in the real world the MC would not be charged with a crime and any attempt to do so would be set aside by a court.
Still i dont think he has the legal defense of self-defense, not when the court has access to all we seen.
Hillside is basically Bootleg Hollywood, so lets check California's law on this:
Which imo because carter was disarmed and in a choke hold he fails the third and potentially the first requirementA defendant is said to have legally acted in self-defense under California state law if he/she:
If the above are true, then:
- reasonably believed that he/she was in “imminent danger” of suffering bodily injury,
- reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that reasonable fear of imminent peril, and
- used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.1
- a defendant has a valid legal defense, and
- is not liable for a crime.
at which point he may still call for the Flannel doctrine so he gets a less severe charge.
You guys might disagree but that's how i see it.6.4. Murder, Penal Code 187 PC
Penal Code 187 says that murder is the intentional killing of another withYou must be registered to see the links. Malice aforethought is defined as an unlawful intention to kill or acting with a reckless disregard for human life.
If a person is in imminent danger of being killed, he/she may take whatever measures that are necessary to prevent the killing. Deadly force is obviously expected. The force will be excused if reasonable and not excessive to prevent harm.
The Flannel doctrine often shows up in murder cases where:
The doctrine is also referred to as “
- the defendant is charged with murder (per PC 187), and
- the accused says he/she committed the murder because he/she was acting in self-defense.
You must be registered to see the links.” It applies when the accused kills another person based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to use deadly force in self-defense.
To go into effect, the flannel doctrine requires a showing that:
The doctrine is not really a defense per se, although it applies like a partial defense.
- the accused believed that he/she was in imminent peril of being killed or suffering great bodily injury,
- the accused believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend himself/herself, and
- at least one of these beliefs was unreasonable.21
A jury finding that the accused acted in imperfect self-defense results in a charge being reduced from:
- murder (with a possible life in prison sentence)
- to voluntary manslaughter (which is punished with three to eleven years in prison).
I guess the difference here is that i really don't see Carter as having any chance of escaping or badly hurting the MC when the MC managed to choke hold him.Actually that sort of depends on the context. It says alot about how culture has changed in modern times, that this is even a debate.
What possible moral obligation should I be expected to have to feed, clothe, bathe, medicate, and devote manpower to guarding men who tried to kill me and my friends? Especially in an active conflict? Men whom I have every reason to believe will go right back to trying to kill me and mine if freed?
That's a tough call, morally speaking. The ONLY obligation that comes into play here is a practical one and not a moral one: You would want the other side to treat their POWs as well as you treat your POWs...but that's heavily dependent on an honor system and if the other side is not culturally similar to yours, their idea of honor and their idea of humane conduct could be radically different from yours. the WW2 conflict with Japan is a good example of this....Americans were apalled to discover how their POWs had been treated by the Japanese as various Japanese POW camps were liberated. Starvation, torture, abuse was common.
But many Japanese soldiers of that time considered those who allowed themselves to be captured alive to be the lowest form of cowards and honorless dogs, and resented being forced to guard them and devote vital war resources to them rather than being out in the battlefield with their fellow soldiers. Every bit of food, medicine, and clothing being routed to these "honorless dogs" was food, medicine and clothing that wasn't going to the frontline soldiers who needed them. Every guard stuck in those POW camps was another soldier unable to fight to protect his brothers-in-arms and homeland. That's how they saw it.
Western notions of honor and humane treatment were very different from Eastern notions of honor and humane treatment. They still are today. Which side's "right"? The side that wins, obviously.
Setting that aside, by no reasonable means could Carter be considered a POW so it's moot. He was not remotely helpless. He was in an inferior position, against a superior opponent, sure. But in an active and ongoing struggle, both parties always have a fighting chance. I am not obligated to allow someone who is trying to kill me and those I care about to keep on struggling to do so until they manage to get lucky, or pull out yet another hidden weapon.
Carter is a grown, fit, healthy man who has had at least as much close combat/subdual training as was required to make it through the police academy and has already shown himself to be armed with multiple weapons and shown the will to use them.
You don't get to force a confrontation on someone else and then cry foul when it turns out they're more dangerous than you and willing to use the exact same(or even greater) level of force on you that you were all too happy to use on them when you thought you had the upper hand.