Scaling Force. Rory Miller
Legal Ramifications of Violence
Recently I watched Felon, a movie that makes some realistic and valuable points about self-defense. The story centers around an average guy named Wade Porter (played by actor Stephen Dorff). Porter, his fiancé, and young son have just moved into their first house. After years of struggling for success, his construction business is beginning to take off, they have gotten their finances in line, the marriage ceremony is rapidly approaching, and life is good. Of course this happiness doesn’t last. One night an intruder breaks into their home and everything changes. Porter hears a noise, finds a guy in his son’s bedroom, chases him outside, and smacks him in the head with a baseball bat, killing him. Since the burglar was unarmed and died outside the home where castle doctrines do not apply, Porter is sentenced to three years for voluntary manslaughter.
As the movie progresses, Porter soon realizes that he has lost everything over a split-second decision. The movie teaches some valuable lessons. Chasing down an unarmed intruder who’s hell-bent on escaping and attacking him is clearly not self-defense, not even in Hollywood. In fact, in most jurisdictions a person can only resort to deadly force in order to escape imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm. That “unavoidable” part is the bugger.
Let’s be honest, fighting can be fun. But there is a downside too. If you’ve been in a fight, there is a very good chance that you will be charged with a crime. The more damage you caused to the other guy, the more serious that crime may be. Consequently, it is important to know where and when you are legally justified in getting physical and when you are not.
Legal definitions and interpretations are not universal. To stay out of jail, you really need to talk to an attorney who understands the laws and nuances that apply wherever you might encounter a fighting situation. In general, the classic rule is that self-defense begins when deadly danger begins, ends when the danger ends, and revives again if the danger returns. A proactive-violent defense before an attack has taken place can be extremely challenging to prove legitimate self-defense in the eyes of the court. You will need to very clearly articulate your reasoning. Similarly, a killing that takes place after a crime has already been committed is tough to prove as self-defense. Chasing a burglar outside and attacking him does not end any better in real life than it did in that movie.
You must understand that “self-defense” is an affirmative defense. What this means is that you are admitting to an action that is a crime and arguing that you should not be punished because it was justifiable under the circumstances.
This concept is paramount and bears repeating: claiming self-defense is admitting to the basic crime.
Scenario: You walk into your kitchen late one night and suddenly see a flash of steel, and a knife gets buried in your chest. In an explosive miracle of training, luck, and the will to survive, you lash out with a perfect throat shot. You dial 911 but pass out from blood loss before you can answer any questions. While you are unconscious, the home invader suffocates from the trachea you crushed.
The guy is dead. You killed him. That is homicide. The charge will likely be manslaughter technically, since it is unlikely a prosecutor would try to prove that your intent was specifically to kill. Don’t get hung up on the nuances, but understand clearly that if you claim self-defense you cannot deny the underlying crime. You committed homicide, but you have a really good excuse for doing it—dude was trying to kill you. The challenge is that if your self-defense plea fails, you have admitted to a crime and you will be punished for it.
An affirmative defense, therefore, shifts the burden of proof to you. The prosecution does not need to prove that someone was killed or that you did it. You did his job for him. YOU must prove that you had no choice but to react the way you did.
How do you know when it is legal to get physical with an adversary? Learn the I.M.O.P. (Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion) principle. All four of these criteria must be met before you have a good case for taking action. If one or more of these conditions are absent, you are on shaky legal ground.
These guidelines are not only useful, but they are also easy to remember in the heat of the moment on the street. That’s because they are based on common sense. You must be in danger, or “jeopardy” in order to protect yourself from harm. Obvious, right? Danger from another human being comes from their intent, means and opportunity.
The hard part is that knowing this is not enough. The presence of intent, means, and opportunity may be sufficient for you to act in self-defense. However, their mere presence may not be enough for you to prevail in court. You must also be able to explain how you personally knew that each element was present in a way that the jury will believe.
You must be able to show that the threat (the standard cop term for a bad guy) wanted to do you harm.* You must be able to tell how you knew. Someone screaming, “I’m going to kill you!” is fairly clear, at least if his body language backs up his words. If the threat balls up his fist and draws his hand back, you can explain why you believed he was about to hit you. If a threat suddenly reaches under his jacket, you may believe that he is going for a weapon and can explain that too.
Intent is critical. People have chances to kill you all the time. The waiter bringing you a steak knife in a restaurant has a deadly weapon and is well within range. But we do not kill the waiter, nor do waiters live in fear, because we all understand that without intent there is no threat. No justification for force. So we don’t act.
This goes for the guy reaching under his jacket. This is an action that people do every day, getting out wallets, keys, and loose change. The hand reach itself is not enough. You will have to explain all the elements of that moment that indicated to you why that action showed intent. Did he continue toward you after being told to back off? Were you in an isolated area or alone at night at an ATM? Did you see, hear, or smell something that brought this everyday movement to a new level?
To be a legitimate threat, the person must have intent and you must be able to explain how you knew that.
All the intent in the world does not matter if the threat couldn’t hurt you. Most people have some means at some level—fists and boots and size. Others have weapons or indicate that they have weapons.
A two-year-old throwing a temper tantrum has some of the purest intent in the world, but he or she lacks the size, strength, and coordination to do anything severe.
The means that the actions you articulate must also match the means that were presented. People who were poorly trained in self-defense mouth the words, “I was in fear for my life,” like it is a mantra or a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is a bullshit platitude. You will be expected and required to explain exactly what made you fear for your life—the intent, the means, and the opportunity. If you are claiming the threat was deadly, the means have to be deadly. A shoving match does not count.
You must be able to articulate exactly what led to your fear in a way that demonstrates it was legitimate.
Intent and means do not matter if the threat cannot reach you. If someone is screaming