Is self-defense "murder"?

Is killing for self-defense murder?

Well, it depends. If your country has a law that makes you liable for the killing of someone else, then it's murder (but more like manslaughter).

I think everyone is entitled to have self-defense, even if it means killing an intruder. Most intruders are troublemakers that will contribute nothing but problems to the society.

Or it depends on the state you live in... its a murder its outlawed to kill an intruder at your home... and it is not a murder if its legal to kill one breaking in your fortress home.

In Alabama its perfectly legal to injure or kill an intruder only inside the house, not outside your house. It has to be yours not other person's house. you cannot kill one on your lawn...

In Georgia it is outlawed to plant a boobytraps in the house. I am not sure about killing an intruder...
 
Online Dictionary: Murder:
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

If this is the definition we take, then it is impossible to 'murder' anything that is not human, just as it is impossible for anything other than a human to 'murder' us.

However, this has made the meaning of 'murder' very subjective. For it depends on the 'law' as to wether or not a killing would be considered 'murder'.

For example: in a state where capital punishment is legal, then capital punishment would not be murder.

Similarly, if a country says it is against the law to kill someone in self defence, then it would be considered 'murder', because it was 'unlawful', regardless of your personal opinion.

Furthermore, killing someone in war would not be considered 'murder' as it is within the acceptable 'rules' of war, and not unlawful.

As a Christian, I would be curious as to the Biblical definition of 'Murder'
As the commandment is:
Exodus 20:13 You shall not 'murder'.

kill is not a good interpretation of that word.
 
If they try and kill you then it's not murder but if someone just was trying to rob you and you pulled out a gun and shot them in the face then, yes.

In other words it's not murder if you're defending yourself from death and the only way to do that is to kill them, but if you just do it because you feel you have to right because they're in your home or whatever then, no.
 
For ants and flies, I am a murder because they didn't hurt me.

For bees/wasps, I am a self-defense because I protect them from try to hurt me...


:D
Ants here sure do hurt us when they bit us. Ouch and stay ouch for half hour or longer.
 
I have been trained in karate. Self-defense is not murder. As I was told if you or someone you love lives are in danger then you have a right to hurt or kill the person who are trying to hurt you or your love one.



If the person that you dont feel comfortable and touch you but not in danger. Then you would ask that person to not to touch or let go of you. IF the person refused after 3 requested then you have right to hurt the person.
 
Is self-defense "murder?"

No.

Is killing someone while protecting another person "murder?"

No.

Would you kill someone who is trying to kill your child?

Yes.

On the note that others are saying regarding a break-in, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill. If that person makes it out the front door and dies out of the house, I would drag that body back into the house. Same way if I injured them. For an injury, homeowner can be sued. Now, suppose a police officer busted down your door, without a warrant and without announcing . . . refer to answer #1.
 
On the note that others are saying regarding a break-in, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill. If that person makes it out the front door and dies out of the house, I would drag that body back into the house. Same way if I injured them. For an injury, homeowner can be sued. Now, suppose a police officer busted down your door, without a warrant and without announcing . . . refer to answer #1.
Dragging them back into the building isn't necessary in SC. No matter where the body falls, it can still be self-defense in this state.
 
On the other hand, if the intruder, especially if he hasn't done anything while inside your house and your intervention/appearance made him go the opposite way; thus greatly diminishing the great bodily harm expectation that was present mere seconds before but you still shoot this retreating person and kill him. Now your'e facing Murder One.

Things aren't as simple as they seem.....
 
On the other hand, if the intruder, especially if he hasn't done anything while inside your house and your intervention/appearance made him go the opposite way; thus greatly diminishing the great bodily harm expectation that was present mere seconds before but you still shoot this retreating person and kill him. Now your'e facing Murder One.

Things aren't as simple as they seem.....

Do we have anyone on the forums that works in law enforcement or law to answer this entire thread correctly?
 
Do we have anyone on the forums that works in law enforcement or law to answer this entire thread correctly?
We used to have a couple but I don't know if there are any still here.

This is all I know about my state:

In declaring an "open season" on burglars who break into homes, South Carolina Attorney General Charlie Condon has instructed all solicitors, sheriffs and police chiefs in the state to refrain from arresting "citizens acting to defend their homes" with a firearm or other weapon.

... the attorney general sent a memorandum to all state prosecutors and law enforcement officials warning them not to arrest or prosecute people who defend themselves with "deadly force" against a "home invader."

..."As chief prosecutor of South Carolina, I am today declaring open season on home invaders," Condon said. "That season is year round. Citizens protecting their homes who use force -- even deadly force -- will be fully safeguarded under the law of this state and subject to no arrest, charge or prosecution.

"In South Carolina, would-be intruders should now hear this: Invade a home and invite a bullet," said Condon, a Republican.

...The policy serves as a warning to potential burglars, Condon said, about what "faces them" if they attempt to break into a home. And, he said, the policy would serve "to let homeowners know their rights."

The attorney general said existing case law in South Carolina "gives ironclad protection to the citizen in safeguarding his or her home.

"Inside the citizen's home, there are no legal technicalities for the criminal to rely on," he said. Courts have ruled that even deadly force may be used against a burglar "if such degree of force be reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of preventing a forcible entry against his will."

Condon said the new policy would actually help the state's police officers.

"Law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once," he said, noting that armed citizens protecting their homes would serve as a deterrent to crime, and lower crime rates and property loss.

"Home invaders will think twice and even a third time" before breaking in, he said, "knowing [they] risk … their own death … on the other side of the innocent homeowner's door."

"The home is the family's fortress of protection," he added. "When at home, people rightfully feel they are standing on sacred ground. The citizen's home is the line in the sand where criminals dare not cross."

Condon's policy appears to reflect the sentiment of most police chiefs and sheriffs across the country.

According to a 1999-2000 annual survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, 93 percent of police chiefs and sheriffs who responded believe law-abiding citizens "should be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense or sport...."

And this:

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT​

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
 
Do we have anyone on the forums that works in law enforcement or law to answer this entire thread correctly?

Hahaha, u mean just like getting a bunch of lawyers in the same room and all agreeing or coming to the same answers for stuff? Not to mention the differing State laws..........
 
Hahaha, u mean just like getting a bunch of lawyers in the same room and all agreeing or coming to the same answers for stuff? Not to mention the differing State laws..........
That's part of the problem. Each state has a different set of laws. There is no "one size fits all" answer.
 
Back
Top