Originally posted by: Velk
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
"I would take it that your answer is that it doesn't matter and that you are just as justified killing one of your students that you thought was going to go on a shooting spree, as opposed to killing one who *was* about to go on a shooting spree. "
That is not only my moral take on it, but the view of the United States judicial system. If you don't like it, you're free to flee to nevernever land, but here in America we have the right to defend ourselves. Period.
This is what I was asking - I found it hard to believe that was actually your stance, which is why I have asked you to clarify a number of points.
"What specifically is wrong above ? That the parents would not actually thank you for saving their children's lives even if you didn't ?"
Your entire scenerio is wrong, in that it didn't happen, and is very unlikely to happen. However if it DID happen, then you're wrong in that I was still legally and morally right in acting to stop a perceived threat.
Morally, legally, doesn't matter - if you believe that the parents of your students will thank you for saving their children's lives by killing one of their classmates for a perceived threat then really, I can't argue with you.
"I am not prepared to accept rulings for law enforcement as being equivalent to teachers,"
I can't decipher what you mean by that.
If you do present a citation, please do not use one involving a police officer and an adult felon rather than a schoolteacher and one of their students. I know that you claim it makes no difference, but if it is possible, please humor me.
"In any case, I don't know of any precedent for findings of teachers killing students on perceived threats and being found innocent of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, but I would be interested in seeing any, or any to the contrary for that matter."
Ok, you have a misunderstanding somewhere. Being a teacher is irrelevant. It doesn't give you any rights, nor does it remove any rights. The 'teacher' portion of the equation is absolutely irrelevant in court. But if you want citation of laws and cases where people defended themselves by killing their attacker(s) and were not charged with a crime I'd be happy to post a few thousand from the recent years for you. But I'm telling you now, and 99% of the country will back me in this, it's legal in America to kill someone in self defense if you perceive a threat.
No, I would like a citation of a case where a teacher was not charged with a crime after killing one of their students who appeared to be armed, but actually wasn't, and got off.
Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who appeared to be armed but was not and got off.
Failing that, one where anyone killed a child who *was* armed but had not actually fired the weapon, and got off.
Proving that a lethal shooting was the minimum reasonable force for the situation is kind of the sticking point here. It may be that you are correct, and if so I would be glad for you to expand my knowledge on this subject with actual evidence rather than assertions - they may be obvious to you, but I am not familiar with the material on which you are basing your judgement.
Happy to oblige. I probably won't find a case of a teacher killing a student, since it's illegal for teachers to have guns in school. But I'll work on the rest for you. Also, understand that the statutes I'll list are Washington State laws and other states vary 'slightly'. Overall, it's the same idea though.
Reading laws can be daunting if you aren't familiar with the process and terminology. I'll summarize as well as explain the general process. In case you're wondering I have a ridiculous amount of experience and training in these areas. After the military I entered private security and began my coursework in criminal justice as well as private classes in various safety, security and self-defense aspects. I worked in security and with law enforcement (in civilian capacities) for about 12 years so far. I have taken more private classes regarding these fields than most law enforcement personnel receive in a similar amount of time on the force. I have also been allowed to receive some limited instruction from law enforcement agencies along with their officers. I have a couple dozen certifications in relative areas, as well as my general education. I have arrested a few dozen people, and through my information and/or actions assisted with three or four times that many arrests by others. I have been in literally hundreds (probably nearing a thousand) physical confrontations, many were full assaults and I have had to draw my weapon both in the line of duty and in civilian life (though fortunately I've never had to fire). I am currently a private security consultant (part-time) and offer safety/security/self-defense courses throughout Washington State (and occassionally Oregon in special circumstances). While that doesn't make me an 'expert', it certainly gives me enough first hand experience to be useful as a reference to these discussions.
Let's say you've just shot someone. Who you are and who they are, are absolutely irrelevant under the law...they can be 10 they can be 100, female, male, big, small, absolutely does not matter. I should clarify that there ARE different rules if you are a law enforcement officer or acting as one. Anyway, so you've shot someone and the police show up. The first thing they'll do is probably have you discard your weapon (any smart person would have done so already) and they'll take you into custody for their own safety. They'll take an initial report at the scene, but honestly the correct statement to give if you shoot someone is 'Officer, I wish to cooperate, but you'll understand if I ask to speak with my lawyer before giving a statement." This is not really incriminating, and it won't change the next steps very much...especially if others on the scene explain the defensive nature of the shooting. Different people and places will respond differently at this point. Some will take you in, some will verify the defensive nature of the shooting and release you after taking your information. If you're released they will almost always confiscate your weapon. Also if you're released they'll still investigate the situation and report to the DA who'll then decide if charges will be filed. As long as you follow proper procedures it's HIGHLY unlikely that you'll be charged with a crime related to the shooting.
If you're taken in you'll go to the booking facility where you'll have a chance to speak with your lawyer (if you can get them there that quickly) and depending on the jurisdiction and the reports the police receive they'll either release you outright, release you pending investigation, or hold you pending investigation. Eventually (usually within 72 hours) they'll either charge you or let you go home while they finish their investigation like above.
So let's say that for some reason they choose to press charges. Now you go to trial. At the trial you'll be pleading not-guilty by reason of RCW 9A.16.050 (use of force when justified). Now, here's the whole point of the trial. You will attempt to show that given the circumstances and YOUR knowledge/training YOU BELIEVED you were faced with a situation covered under RCW 9A.16.050...which is to say that YOU BELIEVED a felony was being committed in your presence, or the person you shot were attempting to inflict harm...and that you used the correct level of force given that situation and that you are otherwise in your correct state of mind. If the jury of 'reasonable people' agrees that you did that, then they must find you not guilty.
I emphasized certain words above to show that it doesn't matter what the jury thinks you should have done (in theory), they must answer as to rather YOU acted correctly given YOUR knowledge and understandings. That's also why it doesn't matter if a gun is loaded or not when someone waves it at you. Because you, as the possible victim of a crime, don't know if it's loaded or not, you're allowed, by law, to react as if it is.
So that's the process in a nutshell. Again, different areas differ slightly on their wording and definitions, and quite a few states won't allow lethal force without threat of harm. I'll post some actual cases later, I'm late for a final exam right now.
RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:
(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.
(2) "Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury.
[1986 c 209 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.010.]
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force -- When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime -- Reimbursement.
(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.
(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.
Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.
(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.
(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:
answer yes or no
1. Was the finding of not guilty based upon self-defense? . . . . .
2. If your answer to question 1 is no, do not answer the remaining question.
3. If your answer to question 1 is yes, was the defendant:
a. Protecting himself or herself? . . . . .
b. Protecting his or her family? . . . . .
c. Protecting his or her property? . . . . .
d. Coming to the aid of another who was in imminent danger of a heinous crime? . . . . .
e. Coming to the aid of another who was the victim of a heinous crime? . . . . .
f. Engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the crime with which the defendant is charged? . . . . .
[1995 c 44 § 1; 1989 c 94 § 1; 1977 ex.s. c 206 § 8. Formerly RCW 9.01.200.]