In a recent video, a mentally disturbed man is seen in the middle of the road. He is stopping cars and jumping on top of them. The drivers are forced to wait for the man to move while hoping their property remains unharmed. The question is, “Is it justified for drivers to use lethal force by hitting this man with their car?” The answer is “No.” But all hope is not lost here as the law can take other actions.
Self-Defense and What to Consider While Implementing
Self-defense is the justifiable use of force on another person that can cause their death or inflict major injury. It is an affirmative defense that requires you to accept responsibility for your actions. It requires you to justify your action rather than deny that you committed a crime. However, the law authorities rarely give self-defense enough weightage, and people are handsomely charged for protecting themselves or their properties.
To understand this better, knowing exactly what the “justifiable” use of deadly force means is important. This is defined as using or threatening to use deadly force that is reasonably believed to be necessary for preventing imminent death, grave bodily injury, or an imminent forcible felony. The elements are:
- You had a reasonable fear of an imminent danger of harm.
- You reasonably felt that using such force was necessary to combat that fear of imminent harm.
- You used force no more than that which was required to defend yourself.
What Does “Stand Your Ground” Mean? How Does it Apply?
“Stand Your Ground” laws stipulate that individuals are not obligated to flee if someone uses or threatens to use deadly force. This implies that they are not engaged in any criminal activity. This also implies that they are at the place where they have the right to be. They shall firmly stand their ground rather than retreat. For example, if you see somebody approaching you with a knife while you’re on a public sidewalk, you have all the right to stand your ground and use deadly force to defend yourself from harm.
Defense of Property
In California, you are allowed to defend your property or possessions in addition to defending yourself. However, deadly force is not permitted to defend property. In California, it is legally allowed to fight back if:
- There is an imminent danger of harm to your property.
- You use reasonable force to protect your property.
Furthermore, a person can legally use force to protect someone else’s property, such as a family member or guest. However, reasonable force must be used as a defense if you want your criminal charges dismissed.
Reasonable force means the force any reasonable person in the same situation would find necessary to protect himself or the property. Five key points to be kept in mind are:
- The force used must be proportional to the threatened danger.
- There is no requirement for the risk to have actually existed as long as your belief was reasonable.
- In case of a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, lethal force can be used.
- There is no duty to retreat in California because it is a “stand-your-ground” state.
- California’s Castle Doctrine allows the use of lethal force to defend your home from intruders.
Can I Defend My Property Using Lethal Force?
The straightaway answer is No. One cannot use lethal force to protect one’s property. However, some situations do make the use of deadly force justifiable. Florida Statute Section 776.031 authorizes the use of lethal force when a person with criminal intent unlawfully, forcefully enters a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. It is also authorized when there is a reason to believe that an unlawful forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
In the opening video at the top of this page, you can see the actions of the mentally disturbed man. However, it does not impose the fear of imminent harm to the person or property. Therefore, the use of lethal force in this case would be unjustifiable. However, non-lethal force can still be used. While the drivers cannot hit this man with their cars, they can surely walk out of the car, throw this man out of the car, and drive away.
Who Decides If My Action Was Justifiable?
Once you present your case in court, it will be reviewed in three different instances. The law enforcement agency, the judge, and the jury will decide your fate. At the first level, a law enforcement agent will determine whether your action was justifiable or not. If the agent believes your action is justified, they likely will not press charges against you. If they disagree, you will be arrested and presented to the judge for trial as per the law. Based on evidence, witnesses, and a judge’s independent decision, the charges will either be dismissed or further presented to the jury. The jury will ultimately decide your guilt or innocence.
CALCRIM No.3476 – Right to Defend Real or Personal Property
According to CALCRIM No. 3476, real or personal property owner has the right to use reasonable force. This must be used to defend their own property or the property of a family member, guest, master, servant, and ward from imminent harm. Whether or not the person used reasonable force will only be justified if another reasonable person acted the same way, with the same force, in the same situation. As long as the defendant’s fear was justified, the threat doesn’t need to have actually existed. The opposite party has a burden to prove that the defendant used a force that was beyond reasonable. If they cannot prove, the defendant is not charged guilty of the crime.
Brief Wrap-Up
We all have the right to defend ourselves and our possessions. However, proving our actions under the law is not always easy. There is the risk of getting charged for the ‘offense’ of defending a person and property. This signifies the importance of diving a little into what the law states and to what extent actions are rendered permissible under the law. If one may still find themselves in an undesirable situation, a wise way is to hire an experienced defense attorney.
[…] This video has gone viral because it has been the topic of much discussion. Some people defend the woman, claiming that she acted in self-defense. […]