In Minneapolis, in October 2011, it was alleged that Vikings cornerback Chris Cook attacked his girlfriend after she started talking to an ex-boyfriend. After the fight, his girlfriend claimed that he strangled her, but later dropped the charges though her prosecutors have acknowledged that they plan on still pursuing strangulation and third-degree assault charges. Cook was given a two-week suspension, but will plead self-defense on his next hearing in January 2012. If you've also been charged with a crime and are unsure of your options, here is some information that might help determine if it is beneficial to make a self-defense claim.
Depending on the crime, there are many different defensive tactics that could get you an acquittal. Yet, there are also different scenarios and procedures that a court established when a person claiming self defense is on trial. Take a look at the list of rules and determine the answers to your scenario:
- Alter ego defense;
- Defense of others; and
- Defense of the third person
The alter ego rule pertains to a situation where the defendant kills another person due to self-defense. In a court of law, the defendant is asked to put themselves in the place of the deceased attacker to see if they would have used deadly force to make the person stop. A defense of a third person is using force to protect another party if someone else threatens them; this self-defense claim is only valid should the amount of force be equal to that of the attackers.
Defense of others is extremely similar to defense of a third person, and in some courts a person is allowed to use force if it is reasonable to believe that someone means to harm others; this is still true even if the other person was not planning to attack another. It is imperative to know what jurisdictions allow this as there are some that don't. These guidelines are essential to review before claiming self-defense in a court due to the possibility of a conviction should these rules render the defense inefficient.
In order for a self-defense claim to be accepted by a court, your attorney must prove that the attacker was the person who first tried to harm you: should you have been the person who first expressed a desire to fight, or if there was a tacit agreement, or set time to fight, a self-defense claim would not be validated. Also, if the prosecutor can prove that there was too much force displayed for the scenario, then there is a likely chance of a conviction.
Yet, it is lawful to chase after an attacker if you believe it will procure your safety, any civilian has the right to defend themselves, violently if necessary, to protect their own well-being or that of a loved one. If someone is a threat to your personal property, you must first ask the intruder to leave. If they do not, it is lawful for you to use an appropriate amount of force to make them leave the premises. Also, if attacked in your home, it is necessary to only reciprocate deadly force if the attacker is using this type of force on you; it is not against the law to use a less harsh force to make intruder extricate the premises.
If an intruder or attacker displayed threatening behavior towards you in the past, there are more concrete grounds for evidence should this person have used unnecessary force with you in the future. In California, self-defense claims must be reasonable; if you kill or injure someone in a self-defense struggle, you are not lawfully at fault. This is not true in all jurisdictions, so visit your local police or government sites to be informed of what is legal in your state.
