Unnecessary level of self-defense

[RingoBerry]

I'm not sure how to construct my question properly so allow me to explain it with a scenario.

A person breaks into your home with the intention of robbing you and harming you with a weapon. During the struggle, you managed to get an advantage. The intruder falls down and you managed to grab his weapon, instead of just incapacitating, you chose to fatally wound the person.

I've heard a lot of times that if someone trespasses into your home with the intention of harming you, its fine even if you end up killing them but options do present themselves that will not require us to take a life and yet some ignore it. Is something like that could be considered criminal?

Again I apologize for the confusing way I've written down my question.

 

[Rainman]

Depends entirely on the jurisdiction. In States where one can use the "stand your ground" law to their advantage, I suppose one could use lethal force and still get away with murder. In other places, you'd have to prove you used "reasonable" force to stop the criminal. If you can't then you'd be charged with murder or manslaughter maybe.

 

[JoanMcWench]

Hmm, I think morally you can be criminal in that situation. The only way I see you getting in trouble in that scenario is that you confess everything to the police officer & the police officer does not excuse it under the stress of the circumstance.

If someone entered my home with intent to harm me or my family I would feel not an ounce of regret about what came to them. Though I can see the moral dilemma with using more force than was necessary to incapacitate them who is to say that their intention is/was still not to kill you?

 

[goldenmaine]

Human rights groups may have a problem with this. In my opinion if the offender is down, it is enough already and unnecessary attacks are not needed. Sometimes it can be overlooked with the defense that it was only an act of self defense that is why the victim fatally wounded the offender or worse killed him.

 

[bala]

It did sound confusing on the first read,but yeah i did a couple more.
Just to confirm,you wouldn't want to take a chance of just wounding him once you get an advantage.You never know when he will bounce back and stifle you.I would rather kill him rather than fatally wound him.

 

[OMGnoWAY]

It is legal. You could always claim that you were scared that they would get up and hurt you or find another weapon if you didn't hurt them bad enough. It's not legal to kill someone because you're mad they broke in, but it is legal to kill someone who broke your house to seriously harm you.

Basically, if someone comes at you with a weapon, anything is allowed self-defense-wise.

 

[Gabe]

It does vary from state to state, but you can use reasonable force if you are threatened and there is risk of death or serious harm. If someone beat someone constantly with a weapon, then that would be excessive. The threat must be immediate and the use of force necessary and appropriate so bashing someone over the head when they are unconscious would be excessive. The thing is when you are threatened in your own home, you don't think rationally, so it also depends if your attacker is a 6ft man and you are a 5ft woman of a 6ft 5 man as to how much action you take.

 

[missbishi]

It's such a grey area. I've heard so many storeies where people trying to defend their homes and property end up in serious trouble whilst the intruder gets off scott free. It seems extremely unfair but I suppose it just depends on the particualrs of the case.