Is self-defense mutually exclusive of murder?What would happen to a minor who was blackmailed into robbing a bank and killing a man?What happens if I shoot a police officer in self-defense during a SWAT raid?Murder vs aggravated assault vs attempted murderDoes charging one with premeditated murder weaken the case if the murder was not premeditated?Imaginary potential murder situationCan you be shot in “self-defense” for attempting to disarm someone?Will cheering death thieves, burglars, or robbers carry murder charges?Claiming self-defense and refusing to self-incriminate at the same timeLocked room double murder

SQL Server CUs vs SPs + CUs?

Why quote is positioned differently in "ones' complements" than "two's complements"?

Why my vim doesn't support hex color code?

How can I plot a function with parameters x,y but only in the `x<y` region

Java OOP Temperature Converter

Has a remote rogue DNS client managed to slip through the first iptables rule of a Linux DNS server?

How do astronauts brew tea on ISS and what brewing temperature is common?

Can an unseen servant benefit from inspiring leader?

Is a Finite State Machine a good way to model chess?

Using a heater and toaster oven trips the breaker. Can an electrician fix this?

Modeling in pure math

I missed an important client meeting and hurt my standing. How can I recover?

Is it possible to conserve the total kinetic energy of a system, but not its momentum?

Does the three-clause BSD license hinder academic citations?

Invocable class error: List of size 127 too large to display

Help needed to design 3d printer part

Were ancient languages as sophisticated as modern languages?

Senate Impeachment rule change?

Security implication if android app can be installed on emulator

Which floor is the Hogwarts Library on?

Equivalent circuit of a non-ideal resistor

Is self-awareness or consciousness actually an evolutionary disadvantage?

What would have been the typical drinks for a US farmer in the late 18th/early 19th century?

How to explain my complicated family background to people that I don't know very well?



Is self-defense mutually exclusive of murder?


What would happen to a minor who was blackmailed into robbing a bank and killing a man?What happens if I shoot a police officer in self-defense during a SWAT raid?Murder vs aggravated assault vs attempted murderDoes charging one with premeditated murder weaken the case if the murder was not premeditated?Imaginary potential murder situationCan you be shot in “self-defense” for attempting to disarm someone?Will cheering death thieves, burglars, or robbers carry murder charges?Claiming self-defense and refusing to self-incriminate at the same timeLocked room double murder






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








15


















A Dallas man is charged with murder. The narrative indicates that the man shot the intruder in his back yard as the intruder approached with a pickax. Assuming that the homeowner does not have a duty to retreat and that he does have lawful cause to defend himself (from intruder with a pickax), why how does the narrative fit a murder charge?



UPDATE: That being said, I would expect that the intruder being shot in the back of the neck does NOT help the defendant's claim of a justifiable shooting.










share|improve this question






















  • 2





    It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:26






  • 2





    Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:28







  • 7





    Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

    – Alice
    Oct 2 at 9:44






  • 2





    Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

    – Russell McMahon
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 5





    @gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

    – Pete B.
    Oct 2 at 16:32

















15


















A Dallas man is charged with murder. The narrative indicates that the man shot the intruder in his back yard as the intruder approached with a pickax. Assuming that the homeowner does not have a duty to retreat and that he does have lawful cause to defend himself (from intruder with a pickax), why how does the narrative fit a murder charge?



UPDATE: That being said, I would expect that the intruder being shot in the back of the neck does NOT help the defendant's claim of a justifiable shooting.










share|improve this question






















  • 2





    It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:26






  • 2





    Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:28







  • 7





    Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

    – Alice
    Oct 2 at 9:44






  • 2





    Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

    – Russell McMahon
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 5





    @gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

    – Pete B.
    Oct 2 at 16:32













15













15









15


2






A Dallas man is charged with murder. The narrative indicates that the man shot the intruder in his back yard as the intruder approached with a pickax. Assuming that the homeowner does not have a duty to retreat and that he does have lawful cause to defend himself (from intruder with a pickax), why how does the narrative fit a murder charge?



UPDATE: That being said, I would expect that the intruder being shot in the back of the neck does NOT help the defendant's claim of a justifiable shooting.










share|improve this question
















A Dallas man is charged with murder. The narrative indicates that the man shot the intruder in his back yard as the intruder approached with a pickax. Assuming that the homeowner does not have a duty to retreat and that he does have lawful cause to defend himself (from intruder with a pickax), why how does the narrative fit a murder charge?



UPDATE: That being said, I would expect that the intruder being shot in the back of the neck does NOT help the defendant's claim of a justifiable shooting.







texas murder






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 2 at 16:20







gatorback

















asked Oct 2 at 0:20









gatorbackgatorback

1,4508 silver badges19 bronze badges




1,4508 silver badges19 bronze badges










  • 2





    It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:26






  • 2





    Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:28







  • 7





    Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

    – Alice
    Oct 2 at 9:44






  • 2





    Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

    – Russell McMahon
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 5





    @gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

    – Pete B.
    Oct 2 at 16:32












  • 2





    It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:26






  • 2





    Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

    – Nate Eldredge
    Oct 2 at 1:28







  • 7





    Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

    – Alice
    Oct 2 at 9:44






  • 2





    Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

    – Russell McMahon
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 5





    @gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

    – Pete B.
    Oct 2 at 16:32







2




2





It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

– Nate Eldredge
Oct 2 at 1:26





It may help to read the original arrest warrant, which appears to be the sole source for the CNN story. In particular, as far as we can tell from the warrant, there is only Meyer's word for it that the deceased was in fact an intruder, or that he "came at" Meyer. It is quite possible that the police don't believe him.

– Nate Eldredge
Oct 2 at 1:26




2




2





Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

– Nate Eldredge
Oct 2 at 1:28






Also, even if the shooting itself was justified as self-defense, the police may believe that Meyer knew or should have known that the man was wounded, and intentionally or knowingly caused his death by refusing to assist him or call for help.

– Nate Eldredge
Oct 2 at 1:28





7




7





Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

– Alice
Oct 2 at 9:44





Just an aside, to answer your title answer in general (not applying to Texas). In Russia there is a specific crime called literally "Murder committed while exceeding necessary limits of self-defence".

– Alice
Oct 2 at 9:44




2




2





Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

– Russell McMahon
Oct 2 at 11:02





Datapoint only: In New Zealand - believing that your life is threatened is total defence re homicide BUT you'll usually find yourself defending your position with a Jury trial. Here you MAY NOT attempt to harm a retreating assailant. People have shot and killed retreating intruders and been charged with murder (and probably convicted of murder or manslaughter). | AND people have killed attackers and been acquitted of murder.

– Russell McMahon
Oct 2 at 11:02




5




5





@gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

– Pete B.
Oct 2 at 16:32





@gatorback I was trying to express that we cannot judge guilt or innocence based upon a headline. It seems that the OP is doing just that.

– Pete B.
Oct 2 at 16:32










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















30



















The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it was indeed justifiable self-defense.



As a source for this answer, see Texas state law library. https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground



That site itself says that the laws are complicated and refers readers to “plain English” from which I selected https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/



For self defense, the site says:





Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.





For protection of property, it says





Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
He is the owner of the land;
He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.





OK! To summarize the story linked by the OP, homeowner hears and then finds a man outside breaking into homeowner’s shed. He confronts intruder who then moves toward homeowner with a pickaxe. Homeowner shoots and intruder runs off. let us agree that the first shot was allowed under Texas law, preventing a robbery and perhaps an attack with a pickaxe. The homeowner says that he then shot again “into the night.” At this point he is shooting a fleeing person. We can even leave out all of the irregularities once he calls 911 two hours later to report an invasion in progress even though the intruder was dead.



In any case, there is also the questions are:



  1. Is the homeowner’s version of events true in the first place?

  2. If we accept everything he said, was the shot the killed the man justifiable under Texas law?

These are for the prosecutor to decide if it is worth trying and the jury to decide.



Back to your question of how can they charge him if he had a right to stand his ground?





Further, even if a person has a justification for using force, he may still be arrested and face trial.





Self defense is a defense against a murder charge, not a get out of jail free card.






share|improve this answer






















  • 6





    Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 3





    @WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:36







  • 4





    Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:46






  • 1





    That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 13:48






  • 1





    People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

    – Barmar
    Oct 2 at 18:32


















16



















A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law.



Self defence is a defence to murder: if you can prove you acted in self defence, then the accusation of murder will fail. You will not have committed a murder, and you will be found innocent for the charge of murder, though you might be charged and convicted for a lesser crime such as manslaughter.



It is true: legally, they are mutually exclusive. No one can be convicted (found guilty) for murder when they have successfully raised the defence of having acted in self defence.



What is happening in the news article is that someone was charged with murder, and that person may or may not raise self defence as a defence. Once the trial concludes, the jury will decide if self defence is successfully raised or not.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

    – I'm with Monica
    Oct 2 at 10:38







  • 6





    In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

    – Shazamo Morebucks
    Oct 2 at 13:06







  • 2





    @AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

    – Mołot
    Oct 2 at 15:05






  • 3





    @AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:49







  • 4





    Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:51


















1



















Murder is almost universally defined as deliberate homicide, or in some equivalent way.



"Self defence against an attack" is an affirmative defence to a charge of causing physical harm, be it battery or murder.



It is to explicitly acknowledge that the deliberate homicide occurred, but the circumstances of that homicide justify it in some way that should excuse the defendant from any criminal penalty.



Where murder charges are actually laid against a defendant who posits acting in self defence, it is the belief of those laying such charges (District Attorney, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.) that the circumstances do not justify homicide, either because lethal force is excessive to resolving the situation or because no attack was actually occurring.






share|improve this answer






















  • 1





    I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

    – Martin Bonner supports Monica
    Oct 2 at 16:00











  • It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:28






  • 1





    @MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:29






  • 1





    Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

    – chrylis -on strike-
    Oct 2 at 21:12


















1



















A court can acknowledge that the accused was defending themself, but decide they acted too violently under the circumstances and is guilty of murder by virtue of excessive or unlawful self-defense. This is called "imperfect self-defense".




Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
Wikipedia article on Imperfect self defense




Summary



Whether "murder" and "self-defense" are mutually exclusive depends on the jurisdiction and how the self-defense argument is mounted.



In Texas, imperfect self-defense can either mitigate the severity of the crime (reducing a murder charge to manslaughter) or it can mitigate the punishment after the defendant has been found guilty of murder (reducing a death penalty to a life sentence, e.g.). So self-defense and murder are not always mutually exclusive.



In the U.K., imperfect self-defense is a mitigating factor in what is still called "murder".



In Maryland, imperfect self-defense and murder are mutually exclusive. (But I'm not sure my one citation is proof enough.)



Texas-Specific Rules



The Texas statutes under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Chapter 19 (Criminal Homocide) set out the definitions for "Murder", "Capital Murder", "Manslaughter", and "Negligent Homocide". We'll just look at "Murder" and "Manslaughter" as being relevant here.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER.



(b) A person commits an offense if he:

⇒(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

⇒(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual



Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.




So in their basic definitions, it seems that deliberately shooting someone would qualify as "murder" regardless of self-defense being applied, while "manslaughter" would apply if the shooter was just aiming wildly in the dark trying to scare off the shootee or something similar.



The Texas statutes under Title 2 (General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility), Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Subchapter C (Protection Of Persons) provides defense-related definitions. Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 describe "Self Defense" (non lethal), "Deadly Force In Defense Of Person", and "Defense Of Third Person" (lethal or non-lethal), respectively.



Under those definitions, "self defense" explicitly refers to using non-lethal force against someone, while murder requires the use of deadly force. This means "self defense" (in this very narrow definition) and "murder" are mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from reading excerpts from pretty much any murder case that the term "self defense" is also used for lethal force cases in practice, so this logic doesn't hold for real-world cases.



Of note is that neither the homocide statutes nor the justification statutes mention anything about imperfect self-defense. Either you were defending yourself legally, or it was murder. However, there is common law related to the subject.




Appellant therefore was not entitled to have the self-defense issue submitted to the jury at the guilt-or-innocence phase of his trial. Nevertheless, his imperfect self-defense claim warranted submission of the provocation issue at the penalty phase.
Charles Evans v. State of Texas at the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (1980) via Justia




.




Under the common law doctrine of imperfect self-defense, if a defendant merely intended to assault the victim and ended up killing him because of escalating violence that he did not intend, the actor would be acquitted of murder and convicted of another offense, depending on his culpability.
Sergio Huerta v. State of Texas at the Criminal District Court No. 2 (2008) via Justia




.




As explained below, imperfect self-defense … [is a] defensive issue that may be relevant in evaluating a claim of self-defense in certain cases.
Erick Santos-Valdez v. State of Texas at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (2014) via Justia




In the 1980 case, imperfect self-defense was only useful in determining the sentence (specifically, death penalty vs. life sentence in this case), and not in determining the charges. In this case he was convicted of capital murder, but imperfect self-defense was at play in overturning his death penalty. So murder and imperfect self-defense were not mutually exclusive. (Appellant robbed a store and claims he only shot the manager because the manager shot first. Clearly, the appellant had no right to self-defense so the murder conviction was upheld, but because he was shooting defensively, it was a mitigating factor in the murder sentence.)



In the 2008 case, imperfect self-defense might have been used to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. So in that application, murder and self-defense were mutually exclusive. (Appellant shot in the air during a vehicle robbery to scare the victim. Victim shot appellant. Appellant claims he only walked to the vehicle and unloaded a magazine into the victim because he was surprised by being shot. Appeals court disagreed.)



In the 2014 case, imperfect self-defense is irrelevant to the case, but it's worth noting that the concept is still valid as of five years ago. (Appellant shot a man who was grappling him through the window of his car, after the appellant's friend tried to rob the man. The appeal summary isn't very specific on why this was murder, since it's only dealing with technicalities.)



Other-Than-Texas Rules



The UK still considers it murder, but allows mitigating the minimum term of the prison sentence, if self-defense was somewhat involved:




As murder is such a serious crime, the approach to sentencing for this offence is set out in law.



Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:



• the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence
Sentencing Council for England and Wales




The state of Maryland explicitly considers "murder" to include malice, while a legal defense of "imperfect self defense" explicitly requires proof there wasn't malice. As such, "self defense" and "murder" are mutually exclusive under legal definitions, while "self defense" and "manslaughter" are not.




Initially, we note that the difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.



Imperfect self defense, by contrast, is not a complete defense. Its chief characteristic is that it operates to negate malice, an element the State must prove to establish murder. As a result, the successful invocation of this doctrine does not completely exonerate the defendant, but mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
State of Maryland v. Melvin Faulkner at the Maryland Court of Appeals (1984) via Google Scholar







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    "the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

    – Mazura
    Oct 4 at 1:13







  • 1





    @Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

    – user45266
    Oct 4 at 3:58












  • In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

    – gnasher729
    Oct 4 at 18:24












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45183%2fis-self-defense-mutually-exclusive-of-murder%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









30



















The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it was indeed justifiable self-defense.



As a source for this answer, see Texas state law library. https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground



That site itself says that the laws are complicated and refers readers to “plain English” from which I selected https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/



For self defense, the site says:





Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.





For protection of property, it says





Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
He is the owner of the land;
He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.





OK! To summarize the story linked by the OP, homeowner hears and then finds a man outside breaking into homeowner’s shed. He confronts intruder who then moves toward homeowner with a pickaxe. Homeowner shoots and intruder runs off. let us agree that the first shot was allowed under Texas law, preventing a robbery and perhaps an attack with a pickaxe. The homeowner says that he then shot again “into the night.” At this point he is shooting a fleeing person. We can even leave out all of the irregularities once he calls 911 two hours later to report an invasion in progress even though the intruder was dead.



In any case, there is also the questions are:



  1. Is the homeowner’s version of events true in the first place?

  2. If we accept everything he said, was the shot the killed the man justifiable under Texas law?

These are for the prosecutor to decide if it is worth trying and the jury to decide.



Back to your question of how can they charge him if he had a right to stand his ground?





Further, even if a person has a justification for using force, he may still be arrested and face trial.





Self defense is a defense against a murder charge, not a get out of jail free card.






share|improve this answer






















  • 6





    Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 3





    @WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:36







  • 4





    Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:46






  • 1





    That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 13:48






  • 1





    People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

    – Barmar
    Oct 2 at 18:32















30



















The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it was indeed justifiable self-defense.



As a source for this answer, see Texas state law library. https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground



That site itself says that the laws are complicated and refers readers to “plain English” from which I selected https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/



For self defense, the site says:





Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.





For protection of property, it says





Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
He is the owner of the land;
He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.





OK! To summarize the story linked by the OP, homeowner hears and then finds a man outside breaking into homeowner’s shed. He confronts intruder who then moves toward homeowner with a pickaxe. Homeowner shoots and intruder runs off. let us agree that the first shot was allowed under Texas law, preventing a robbery and perhaps an attack with a pickaxe. The homeowner says that he then shot again “into the night.” At this point he is shooting a fleeing person. We can even leave out all of the irregularities once he calls 911 two hours later to report an invasion in progress even though the intruder was dead.



In any case, there is also the questions are:



  1. Is the homeowner’s version of events true in the first place?

  2. If we accept everything he said, was the shot the killed the man justifiable under Texas law?

These are for the prosecutor to decide if it is worth trying and the jury to decide.



Back to your question of how can they charge him if he had a right to stand his ground?





Further, even if a person has a justification for using force, he may still be arrested and face trial.





Self defense is a defense against a murder charge, not a get out of jail free card.






share|improve this answer






















  • 6





    Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 3





    @WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:36







  • 4





    Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:46






  • 1





    That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 13:48






  • 1





    People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

    – Barmar
    Oct 2 at 18:32













30















30











30









The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it was indeed justifiable self-defense.



As a source for this answer, see Texas state law library. https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground



That site itself says that the laws are complicated and refers readers to “plain English” from which I selected https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/



For self defense, the site says:





Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.





For protection of property, it says





Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
He is the owner of the land;
He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.





OK! To summarize the story linked by the OP, homeowner hears and then finds a man outside breaking into homeowner’s shed. He confronts intruder who then moves toward homeowner with a pickaxe. Homeowner shoots and intruder runs off. let us agree that the first shot was allowed under Texas law, preventing a robbery and perhaps an attack with a pickaxe. The homeowner says that he then shot again “into the night.” At this point he is shooting a fleeing person. We can even leave out all of the irregularities once he calls 911 two hours later to report an invasion in progress even though the intruder was dead.



In any case, there is also the questions are:



  1. Is the homeowner’s version of events true in the first place?

  2. If we accept everything he said, was the shot the killed the man justifiable under Texas law?

These are for the prosecutor to decide if it is worth trying and the jury to decide.



Back to your question of how can they charge him if he had a right to stand his ground?





Further, even if a person has a justification for using force, he may still be arrested and face trial.





Self defense is a defense against a murder charge, not a get out of jail free card.






share|improve this answer
















The simple answer to the question you asked is that they are not mutually exclusive. Self-defense and “castle doctrine” are defenses. A person can be charged and tried for murder, and one or both of those can be their defense. But shooting someone in self defense does not guarantee immunity from a charge or trial. In the first place, you need to show that it was indeed justifiable self-defense.



As a source for this answer, see Texas state law library. https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground



That site itself says that the laws are complicated and refers readers to “plain English” from which I selected https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/



For self defense, the site says:





Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:
Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
Had a legal right to be on the property;
Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.





For protection of property, it says





Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
He is the owner of the land;
He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.





OK! To summarize the story linked by the OP, homeowner hears and then finds a man outside breaking into homeowner’s shed. He confronts intruder who then moves toward homeowner with a pickaxe. Homeowner shoots and intruder runs off. let us agree that the first shot was allowed under Texas law, preventing a robbery and perhaps an attack with a pickaxe. The homeowner says that he then shot again “into the night.” At this point he is shooting a fleeing person. We can even leave out all of the irregularities once he calls 911 two hours later to report an invasion in progress even though the intruder was dead.



In any case, there is also the questions are:



  1. Is the homeowner’s version of events true in the first place?

  2. If we accept everything he said, was the shot the killed the man justifiable under Texas law?

These are for the prosecutor to decide if it is worth trying and the jury to decide.



Back to your question of how can they charge him if he had a right to stand his ground?





Further, even if a person has a justification for using force, he may still be arrested and face trial.





Self defense is a defense against a murder charge, not a get out of jail free card.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Oct 2 at 1:37

























answered Oct 2 at 1:26









DamilaDamila

4621 silver badge11 bronze badges




4621 silver badge11 bronze badges










  • 6





    Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 3





    @WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:36







  • 4





    Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:46






  • 1





    That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 13:48






  • 1





    People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

    – Barmar
    Oct 2 at 18:32












  • 6





    Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 11:02






  • 3





    @WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:36







  • 4





    Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

    – Damila
    Oct 2 at 13:46






  • 1





    That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

    – Will
    Oct 2 at 13:48






  • 1





    People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

    – Barmar
    Oct 2 at 18:32







6




6





Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

– Will
Oct 2 at 11:02





Isn't this an excessively literal interpretation of the question? There aren't any circumstances that guarantee a prosecutor won't decide on a given charge. The question implied by the title is "is a court's acceptance of a self-defense defense mutually exclusive of a murder conviction?"

– Will
Oct 2 at 11:02




3




3





@WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

– Damila
Oct 2 at 13:36






@WIll, I don't agree because the OP in his text asked "...how does the narrative fit a murder charge?" Admittedly I was verbose, but I believed that the OP was asking how the charge could even be brought. Also my short first paragraph answers that. Maybe I should have put "tl;dr" :)

– Damila
Oct 2 at 13:36





4




4





Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

– Damila
Oct 2 at 13:46





Yes, in general I think there is a somewhat common misconception, even for things not as controversial or politically charged as castle doctrine, that "They can't arrest me because reasons that justify actions." Actually, yes they can. "Tell it to the judge" as they say.

– Damila
Oct 2 at 13:46




1




1





That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

– Will
Oct 2 at 13:48





That said, I don't think that is exactly the whole picture. At least in England and Wales, sentencing guidelines for murder exist which refer to self-defence as a mitigating factor. This explicitly admits the possibility that a court can convict somebody of murder and then still find that the convicted "to some extent" acted in self-defence.

– Will
Oct 2 at 13:48




1




1





People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

– Barmar
Oct 2 at 18:32





People also often ask "Can I be sued for X?". The pedantic answer is that you can be sued for anything, but the questioner's intent is almost always wondering whether the lawsuit would be allowed and there's a decent chance they could lose.

– Barmar
Oct 2 at 18:32













16



















A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law.



Self defence is a defence to murder: if you can prove you acted in self defence, then the accusation of murder will fail. You will not have committed a murder, and you will be found innocent for the charge of murder, though you might be charged and convicted for a lesser crime such as manslaughter.



It is true: legally, they are mutually exclusive. No one can be convicted (found guilty) for murder when they have successfully raised the defence of having acted in self defence.



What is happening in the news article is that someone was charged with murder, and that person may or may not raise self defence as a defence. Once the trial concludes, the jury will decide if self defence is successfully raised or not.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

    – I'm with Monica
    Oct 2 at 10:38







  • 6





    In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

    – Shazamo Morebucks
    Oct 2 at 13:06







  • 2





    @AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

    – Mołot
    Oct 2 at 15:05






  • 3





    @AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:49







  • 4





    Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:51















16



















A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law.



Self defence is a defence to murder: if you can prove you acted in self defence, then the accusation of murder will fail. You will not have committed a murder, and you will be found innocent for the charge of murder, though you might be charged and convicted for a lesser crime such as manslaughter.



It is true: legally, they are mutually exclusive. No one can be convicted (found guilty) for murder when they have successfully raised the defence of having acted in self defence.



What is happening in the news article is that someone was charged with murder, and that person may or may not raise self defence as a defence. Once the trial concludes, the jury will decide if self defence is successfully raised or not.






share|improve this answer






















  • 2





    Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

    – I'm with Monica
    Oct 2 at 10:38







  • 6





    In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

    – Shazamo Morebucks
    Oct 2 at 13:06







  • 2





    @AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

    – Mołot
    Oct 2 at 15:05






  • 3





    @AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:49







  • 4





    Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:51













16















16











16









A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law.



Self defence is a defence to murder: if you can prove you acted in self defence, then the accusation of murder will fail. You will not have committed a murder, and you will be found innocent for the charge of murder, though you might be charged and convicted for a lesser crime such as manslaughter.



It is true: legally, they are mutually exclusive. No one can be convicted (found guilty) for murder when they have successfully raised the defence of having acted in self defence.



What is happening in the news article is that someone was charged with murder, and that person may or may not raise self defence as a defence. Once the trial concludes, the jury will decide if self defence is successfully raised or not.






share|improve this answer
















A charge of murder means that the government are accusing someone of intentionally and unlawfully killing someone else. A charge is an accusation, not a conviction. A conviction is when you are found guilty of a crime. You aren't a murderer until you've been convicted, since innocent until proven guilty is a principle of law.



Self defence is a defence to murder: if you can prove you acted in self defence, then the accusation of murder will fail. You will not have committed a murder, and you will be found innocent for the charge of murder, though you might be charged and convicted for a lesser crime such as manslaughter.



It is true: legally, they are mutually exclusive. No one can be convicted (found guilty) for murder when they have successfully raised the defence of having acted in self defence.



What is happening in the news article is that someone was charged with murder, and that person may or may not raise self defence as a defence. Once the trial concludes, the jury will decide if self defence is successfully raised or not.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Oct 5 at 12:18









einpoklum - reinstate Monica

4531 gold badge3 silver badges16 bronze badges




4531 gold badge3 silver badges16 bronze badges










answered Oct 2 at 1:41









Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

5,2481 gold badge14 silver badges38 bronze badges




5,2481 gold badge14 silver badges38 bronze badges










  • 2





    Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

    – I'm with Monica
    Oct 2 at 10:38







  • 6





    In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

    – Shazamo Morebucks
    Oct 2 at 13:06







  • 2





    @AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

    – Mołot
    Oct 2 at 15:05






  • 3





    @AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:49







  • 4





    Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:51












  • 2





    Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

    – I'm with Monica
    Oct 2 at 10:38







  • 6





    In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

    – Shazamo Morebucks
    Oct 2 at 13:06







  • 2





    @AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

    – Mołot
    Oct 2 at 15:05






  • 3





    @AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:49







  • 4





    Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

    – Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
    Oct 2 at 15:51







2




2





Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

– I'm with Monica
Oct 2 at 10:38






Just for clarification: Does a person become a murderer the moment the person is convicted of murder, or has the person been a murderer from the moment of the killing, but that fact is only established if the person is later convicted of murder? - In my opinion it should be the latter, but I'm curious about how the doctrine is in common-law traditions!

– I'm with Monica
Oct 2 at 10:38





6




6





In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

– Shazamo Morebucks
Oct 2 at 13:06






In the eyes of the law, you are a murderer when you are convicted for the crime of murder. This is very important, because accusing someone of having committed a crime (e.g. murder) when in fact they haven't is called defamation. A person may sue you for defamation if you falsely tell others they have committed a crime. This is why newspapers and other media organisations never say "X is a murderer facing trial", they say "X is accused/alleged to have committed murder". "X is facing trial for alleged crimes", you will see the word alleged everywhere in these situations

– Shazamo Morebucks
Oct 2 at 13:06





2




2





@AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

– Mołot
Oct 2 at 15:05





@AlexanderKosubek your first comment looks like a question for philosophy.stackexchange.com and not something Law stack should bother about.

– Mołot
Oct 2 at 15:05




3




3





@AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

– Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
Oct 2 at 15:49






@AlexanderKosubek (and @Molot), note that I find that a lot of supposedly "interesting philosophical questions" actually turn out to be tedious exercises in defining terms, like this. That as soon as you try to properly define your terms you discover that everything reduces down to boring tautological truths and falsehoods, and the only thing that's left is to decide which definition (and hence which truths) you prefer.

– Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
Oct 2 at 15:49





4




4





Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

– Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
Oct 2 at 15:51





Many of the common "philosophical debates" all turn out to be "I'm going to choose this emotive term, define a precise meaning so that a statement containing that term is clearly true, and then observe that there are emotive associations with the term that seem to conflict with the statement, even though those associations aren't associated with the precisely-defined meaning that was required to make the statement clearly true in the first place.

– Reinstate Monica --Brondahl--
Oct 2 at 15:51











1



















Murder is almost universally defined as deliberate homicide, or in some equivalent way.



"Self defence against an attack" is an affirmative defence to a charge of causing physical harm, be it battery or murder.



It is to explicitly acknowledge that the deliberate homicide occurred, but the circumstances of that homicide justify it in some way that should excuse the defendant from any criminal penalty.



Where murder charges are actually laid against a defendant who posits acting in self defence, it is the belief of those laying such charges (District Attorney, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.) that the circumstances do not justify homicide, either because lethal force is excessive to resolving the situation or because no attack was actually occurring.






share|improve this answer






















  • 1





    I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

    – Martin Bonner supports Monica
    Oct 2 at 16:00











  • It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:28






  • 1





    @MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:29






  • 1





    Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

    – chrylis -on strike-
    Oct 2 at 21:12















1



















Murder is almost universally defined as deliberate homicide, or in some equivalent way.



"Self defence against an attack" is an affirmative defence to a charge of causing physical harm, be it battery or murder.



It is to explicitly acknowledge that the deliberate homicide occurred, but the circumstances of that homicide justify it in some way that should excuse the defendant from any criminal penalty.



Where murder charges are actually laid against a defendant who posits acting in self defence, it is the belief of those laying such charges (District Attorney, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.) that the circumstances do not justify homicide, either because lethal force is excessive to resolving the situation or because no attack was actually occurring.






share|improve this answer






















  • 1





    I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

    – Martin Bonner supports Monica
    Oct 2 at 16:00











  • It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:28






  • 1





    @MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:29






  • 1





    Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

    – chrylis -on strike-
    Oct 2 at 21:12













1















1











1









Murder is almost universally defined as deliberate homicide, or in some equivalent way.



"Self defence against an attack" is an affirmative defence to a charge of causing physical harm, be it battery or murder.



It is to explicitly acknowledge that the deliberate homicide occurred, but the circumstances of that homicide justify it in some way that should excuse the defendant from any criminal penalty.



Where murder charges are actually laid against a defendant who posits acting in self defence, it is the belief of those laying such charges (District Attorney, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.) that the circumstances do not justify homicide, either because lethal force is excessive to resolving the situation or because no attack was actually occurring.






share|improve this answer
















Murder is almost universally defined as deliberate homicide, or in some equivalent way.



"Self defence against an attack" is an affirmative defence to a charge of causing physical harm, be it battery or murder.



It is to explicitly acknowledge that the deliberate homicide occurred, but the circumstances of that homicide justify it in some way that should excuse the defendant from any criminal penalty.



Where murder charges are actually laid against a defendant who posits acting in self defence, it is the belief of those laying such charges (District Attorney, Crown Prosecution Service, etc.) that the circumstances do not justify homicide, either because lethal force is excessive to resolving the situation or because no attack was actually occurring.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited Oct 2 at 15:56









Martin Bonner supports Monica

3,9235 silver badges20 bronze badges




3,9235 silver badges20 bronze badges










answered Oct 2 at 1:19









NijNij

2,7015 gold badges18 silver badges30 bronze badges




2,7015 gold badges18 silver badges30 bronze badges










  • 1





    I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

    – Martin Bonner supports Monica
    Oct 2 at 16:00











  • It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:28






  • 1





    @MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:29






  • 1





    Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

    – chrylis -on strike-
    Oct 2 at 21:12












  • 1





    I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

    – Martin Bonner supports Monica
    Oct 2 at 16:00











  • It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:28






  • 1





    @MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

    – ohwilleke
    Oct 2 at 20:29






  • 1





    Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

    – chrylis -on strike-
    Oct 2 at 21:12







1




1





I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

– Martin Bonner supports Monica
Oct 2 at 16:00





I've just changed QC to CPS. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (sort of lawyer). QC's can appear for prosecution or defence, or either side in a civil matter. The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute, and employs lawyers to actually appear for the prosecution. The head of the CPS is usually (but not always) a QC.

– Martin Bonner supports Monica
Oct 2 at 16:00













It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

– ohwilleke
Oct 2 at 20:28





It is also worth noting that conduct that doesn't constitute self-defense legally can still be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing or can change the grade of the offense. For example, "heat of passion" murder that is provoked but not in a way that justifies a complete self-defense based dismissal of the charges is often a less serious offense like manslaughter or second degree murder, than the originally charged murder offense.

– ohwilleke
Oct 2 at 20:28




1




1





@MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

– ohwilleke
Oct 2 at 20:29





@MartinBonner Given the international scope of the website and the range of sophistication of people reading it, it is always best to, as you seem to have, spell out abbreviations or acronyms at least once in a question or answer.

– ohwilleke
Oct 2 at 20:29




1




1





Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

– chrylis -on strike-
Oct 2 at 21:12





Murder legally always includes the additional attribute of unlawful, such that self-defense or war don't count.

– chrylis -on strike-
Oct 2 at 21:12











1



















A court can acknowledge that the accused was defending themself, but decide they acted too violently under the circumstances and is guilty of murder by virtue of excessive or unlawful self-defense. This is called "imperfect self-defense".




Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
Wikipedia article on Imperfect self defense




Summary



Whether "murder" and "self-defense" are mutually exclusive depends on the jurisdiction and how the self-defense argument is mounted.



In Texas, imperfect self-defense can either mitigate the severity of the crime (reducing a murder charge to manslaughter) or it can mitigate the punishment after the defendant has been found guilty of murder (reducing a death penalty to a life sentence, e.g.). So self-defense and murder are not always mutually exclusive.



In the U.K., imperfect self-defense is a mitigating factor in what is still called "murder".



In Maryland, imperfect self-defense and murder are mutually exclusive. (But I'm not sure my one citation is proof enough.)



Texas-Specific Rules



The Texas statutes under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Chapter 19 (Criminal Homocide) set out the definitions for "Murder", "Capital Murder", "Manslaughter", and "Negligent Homocide". We'll just look at "Murder" and "Manslaughter" as being relevant here.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER.



(b) A person commits an offense if he:

⇒(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

⇒(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual



Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.




So in their basic definitions, it seems that deliberately shooting someone would qualify as "murder" regardless of self-defense being applied, while "manslaughter" would apply if the shooter was just aiming wildly in the dark trying to scare off the shootee or something similar.



The Texas statutes under Title 2 (General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility), Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Subchapter C (Protection Of Persons) provides defense-related definitions. Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 describe "Self Defense" (non lethal), "Deadly Force In Defense Of Person", and "Defense Of Third Person" (lethal or non-lethal), respectively.



Under those definitions, "self defense" explicitly refers to using non-lethal force against someone, while murder requires the use of deadly force. This means "self defense" (in this very narrow definition) and "murder" are mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from reading excerpts from pretty much any murder case that the term "self defense" is also used for lethal force cases in practice, so this logic doesn't hold for real-world cases.



Of note is that neither the homocide statutes nor the justification statutes mention anything about imperfect self-defense. Either you were defending yourself legally, or it was murder. However, there is common law related to the subject.




Appellant therefore was not entitled to have the self-defense issue submitted to the jury at the guilt-or-innocence phase of his trial. Nevertheless, his imperfect self-defense claim warranted submission of the provocation issue at the penalty phase.
Charles Evans v. State of Texas at the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (1980) via Justia




.




Under the common law doctrine of imperfect self-defense, if a defendant merely intended to assault the victim and ended up killing him because of escalating violence that he did not intend, the actor would be acquitted of murder and convicted of another offense, depending on his culpability.
Sergio Huerta v. State of Texas at the Criminal District Court No. 2 (2008) via Justia




.




As explained below, imperfect self-defense … [is a] defensive issue that may be relevant in evaluating a claim of self-defense in certain cases.
Erick Santos-Valdez v. State of Texas at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (2014) via Justia




In the 1980 case, imperfect self-defense was only useful in determining the sentence (specifically, death penalty vs. life sentence in this case), and not in determining the charges. In this case he was convicted of capital murder, but imperfect self-defense was at play in overturning his death penalty. So murder and imperfect self-defense were not mutually exclusive. (Appellant robbed a store and claims he only shot the manager because the manager shot first. Clearly, the appellant had no right to self-defense so the murder conviction was upheld, but because he was shooting defensively, it was a mitigating factor in the murder sentence.)



In the 2008 case, imperfect self-defense might have been used to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. So in that application, murder and self-defense were mutually exclusive. (Appellant shot in the air during a vehicle robbery to scare the victim. Victim shot appellant. Appellant claims he only walked to the vehicle and unloaded a magazine into the victim because he was surprised by being shot. Appeals court disagreed.)



In the 2014 case, imperfect self-defense is irrelevant to the case, but it's worth noting that the concept is still valid as of five years ago. (Appellant shot a man who was grappling him through the window of his car, after the appellant's friend tried to rob the man. The appeal summary isn't very specific on why this was murder, since it's only dealing with technicalities.)



Other-Than-Texas Rules



The UK still considers it murder, but allows mitigating the minimum term of the prison sentence, if self-defense was somewhat involved:




As murder is such a serious crime, the approach to sentencing for this offence is set out in law.



Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:



• the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence
Sentencing Council for England and Wales




The state of Maryland explicitly considers "murder" to include malice, while a legal defense of "imperfect self defense" explicitly requires proof there wasn't malice. As such, "self defense" and "murder" are mutually exclusive under legal definitions, while "self defense" and "manslaughter" are not.




Initially, we note that the difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.



Imperfect self defense, by contrast, is not a complete defense. Its chief characteristic is that it operates to negate malice, an element the State must prove to establish murder. As a result, the successful invocation of this doctrine does not completely exonerate the defendant, but mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
State of Maryland v. Melvin Faulkner at the Maryland Court of Appeals (1984) via Google Scholar







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    "the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

    – Mazura
    Oct 4 at 1:13







  • 1





    @Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

    – user45266
    Oct 4 at 3:58












  • In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

    – gnasher729
    Oct 4 at 18:24















1



















A court can acknowledge that the accused was defending themself, but decide they acted too violently under the circumstances and is guilty of murder by virtue of excessive or unlawful self-defense. This is called "imperfect self-defense".




Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
Wikipedia article on Imperfect self defense




Summary



Whether "murder" and "self-defense" are mutually exclusive depends on the jurisdiction and how the self-defense argument is mounted.



In Texas, imperfect self-defense can either mitigate the severity of the crime (reducing a murder charge to manslaughter) or it can mitigate the punishment after the defendant has been found guilty of murder (reducing a death penalty to a life sentence, e.g.). So self-defense and murder are not always mutually exclusive.



In the U.K., imperfect self-defense is a mitigating factor in what is still called "murder".



In Maryland, imperfect self-defense and murder are mutually exclusive. (But I'm not sure my one citation is proof enough.)



Texas-Specific Rules



The Texas statutes under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Chapter 19 (Criminal Homocide) set out the definitions for "Murder", "Capital Murder", "Manslaughter", and "Negligent Homocide". We'll just look at "Murder" and "Manslaughter" as being relevant here.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER.



(b) A person commits an offense if he:

⇒(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

⇒(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual



Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.




So in their basic definitions, it seems that deliberately shooting someone would qualify as "murder" regardless of self-defense being applied, while "manslaughter" would apply if the shooter was just aiming wildly in the dark trying to scare off the shootee or something similar.



The Texas statutes under Title 2 (General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility), Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Subchapter C (Protection Of Persons) provides defense-related definitions. Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 describe "Self Defense" (non lethal), "Deadly Force In Defense Of Person", and "Defense Of Third Person" (lethal or non-lethal), respectively.



Under those definitions, "self defense" explicitly refers to using non-lethal force against someone, while murder requires the use of deadly force. This means "self defense" (in this very narrow definition) and "murder" are mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from reading excerpts from pretty much any murder case that the term "self defense" is also used for lethal force cases in practice, so this logic doesn't hold for real-world cases.



Of note is that neither the homocide statutes nor the justification statutes mention anything about imperfect self-defense. Either you were defending yourself legally, or it was murder. However, there is common law related to the subject.




Appellant therefore was not entitled to have the self-defense issue submitted to the jury at the guilt-or-innocence phase of his trial. Nevertheless, his imperfect self-defense claim warranted submission of the provocation issue at the penalty phase.
Charles Evans v. State of Texas at the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (1980) via Justia




.




Under the common law doctrine of imperfect self-defense, if a defendant merely intended to assault the victim and ended up killing him because of escalating violence that he did not intend, the actor would be acquitted of murder and convicted of another offense, depending on his culpability.
Sergio Huerta v. State of Texas at the Criminal District Court No. 2 (2008) via Justia




.




As explained below, imperfect self-defense … [is a] defensive issue that may be relevant in evaluating a claim of self-defense in certain cases.
Erick Santos-Valdez v. State of Texas at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (2014) via Justia




In the 1980 case, imperfect self-defense was only useful in determining the sentence (specifically, death penalty vs. life sentence in this case), and not in determining the charges. In this case he was convicted of capital murder, but imperfect self-defense was at play in overturning his death penalty. So murder and imperfect self-defense were not mutually exclusive. (Appellant robbed a store and claims he only shot the manager because the manager shot first. Clearly, the appellant had no right to self-defense so the murder conviction was upheld, but because he was shooting defensively, it was a mitigating factor in the murder sentence.)



In the 2008 case, imperfect self-defense might have been used to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. So in that application, murder and self-defense were mutually exclusive. (Appellant shot in the air during a vehicle robbery to scare the victim. Victim shot appellant. Appellant claims he only walked to the vehicle and unloaded a magazine into the victim because he was surprised by being shot. Appeals court disagreed.)



In the 2014 case, imperfect self-defense is irrelevant to the case, but it's worth noting that the concept is still valid as of five years ago. (Appellant shot a man who was grappling him through the window of his car, after the appellant's friend tried to rob the man. The appeal summary isn't very specific on why this was murder, since it's only dealing with technicalities.)



Other-Than-Texas Rules



The UK still considers it murder, but allows mitigating the minimum term of the prison sentence, if self-defense was somewhat involved:




As murder is such a serious crime, the approach to sentencing for this offence is set out in law.



Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:



• the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence
Sentencing Council for England and Wales




The state of Maryland explicitly considers "murder" to include malice, while a legal defense of "imperfect self defense" explicitly requires proof there wasn't malice. As such, "self defense" and "murder" are mutually exclusive under legal definitions, while "self defense" and "manslaughter" are not.




Initially, we note that the difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.



Imperfect self defense, by contrast, is not a complete defense. Its chief characteristic is that it operates to negate malice, an element the State must prove to establish murder. As a result, the successful invocation of this doctrine does not completely exonerate the defendant, but mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
State of Maryland v. Melvin Faulkner at the Maryland Court of Appeals (1984) via Google Scholar







share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    "the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

    – Mazura
    Oct 4 at 1:13







  • 1





    @Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

    – user45266
    Oct 4 at 3:58












  • In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

    – gnasher729
    Oct 4 at 18:24













1















1











1









A court can acknowledge that the accused was defending themself, but decide they acted too violently under the circumstances and is guilty of murder by virtue of excessive or unlawful self-defense. This is called "imperfect self-defense".




Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
Wikipedia article on Imperfect self defense




Summary



Whether "murder" and "self-defense" are mutually exclusive depends on the jurisdiction and how the self-defense argument is mounted.



In Texas, imperfect self-defense can either mitigate the severity of the crime (reducing a murder charge to manslaughter) or it can mitigate the punishment after the defendant has been found guilty of murder (reducing a death penalty to a life sentence, e.g.). So self-defense and murder are not always mutually exclusive.



In the U.K., imperfect self-defense is a mitigating factor in what is still called "murder".



In Maryland, imperfect self-defense and murder are mutually exclusive. (But I'm not sure my one citation is proof enough.)



Texas-Specific Rules



The Texas statutes under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Chapter 19 (Criminal Homocide) set out the definitions for "Murder", "Capital Murder", "Manslaughter", and "Negligent Homocide". We'll just look at "Murder" and "Manslaughter" as being relevant here.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER.



(b) A person commits an offense if he:

⇒(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

⇒(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual



Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.




So in their basic definitions, it seems that deliberately shooting someone would qualify as "murder" regardless of self-defense being applied, while "manslaughter" would apply if the shooter was just aiming wildly in the dark trying to scare off the shootee or something similar.



The Texas statutes under Title 2 (General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility), Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Subchapter C (Protection Of Persons) provides defense-related definitions. Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 describe "Self Defense" (non lethal), "Deadly Force In Defense Of Person", and "Defense Of Third Person" (lethal or non-lethal), respectively.



Under those definitions, "self defense" explicitly refers to using non-lethal force against someone, while murder requires the use of deadly force. This means "self defense" (in this very narrow definition) and "murder" are mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from reading excerpts from pretty much any murder case that the term "self defense" is also used for lethal force cases in practice, so this logic doesn't hold for real-world cases.



Of note is that neither the homocide statutes nor the justification statutes mention anything about imperfect self-defense. Either you were defending yourself legally, or it was murder. However, there is common law related to the subject.




Appellant therefore was not entitled to have the self-defense issue submitted to the jury at the guilt-or-innocence phase of his trial. Nevertheless, his imperfect self-defense claim warranted submission of the provocation issue at the penalty phase.
Charles Evans v. State of Texas at the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (1980) via Justia




.




Under the common law doctrine of imperfect self-defense, if a defendant merely intended to assault the victim and ended up killing him because of escalating violence that he did not intend, the actor would be acquitted of murder and convicted of another offense, depending on his culpability.
Sergio Huerta v. State of Texas at the Criminal District Court No. 2 (2008) via Justia




.




As explained below, imperfect self-defense … [is a] defensive issue that may be relevant in evaluating a claim of self-defense in certain cases.
Erick Santos-Valdez v. State of Texas at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (2014) via Justia




In the 1980 case, imperfect self-defense was only useful in determining the sentence (specifically, death penalty vs. life sentence in this case), and not in determining the charges. In this case he was convicted of capital murder, but imperfect self-defense was at play in overturning his death penalty. So murder and imperfect self-defense were not mutually exclusive. (Appellant robbed a store and claims he only shot the manager because the manager shot first. Clearly, the appellant had no right to self-defense so the murder conviction was upheld, but because he was shooting defensively, it was a mitigating factor in the murder sentence.)



In the 2008 case, imperfect self-defense might have been used to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. So in that application, murder and self-defense were mutually exclusive. (Appellant shot in the air during a vehicle robbery to scare the victim. Victim shot appellant. Appellant claims he only walked to the vehicle and unloaded a magazine into the victim because he was surprised by being shot. Appeals court disagreed.)



In the 2014 case, imperfect self-defense is irrelevant to the case, but it's worth noting that the concept is still valid as of five years ago. (Appellant shot a man who was grappling him through the window of his car, after the appellant's friend tried to rob the man. The appeal summary isn't very specific on why this was murder, since it's only dealing with technicalities.)



Other-Than-Texas Rules



The UK still considers it murder, but allows mitigating the minimum term of the prison sentence, if self-defense was somewhat involved:




As murder is such a serious crime, the approach to sentencing for this offence is set out in law.



Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:



• the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence
Sentencing Council for England and Wales




The state of Maryland explicitly considers "murder" to include malice, while a legal defense of "imperfect self defense" explicitly requires proof there wasn't malice. As such, "self defense" and "murder" are mutually exclusive under legal definitions, while "self defense" and "manslaughter" are not.




Initially, we note that the difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.



Imperfect self defense, by contrast, is not a complete defense. Its chief characteristic is that it operates to negate malice, an element the State must prove to establish murder. As a result, the successful invocation of this doctrine does not completely exonerate the defendant, but mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
State of Maryland v. Melvin Faulkner at the Maryland Court of Appeals (1984) via Google Scholar







share|improve this answer














A court can acknowledge that the accused was defending themself, but decide they acted too violently under the circumstances and is guilty of murder by virtue of excessive or unlawful self-defense. This is called "imperfect self-defense".




Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.
Wikipedia article on Imperfect self defense




Summary



Whether "murder" and "self-defense" are mutually exclusive depends on the jurisdiction and how the self-defense argument is mounted.



In Texas, imperfect self-defense can either mitigate the severity of the crime (reducing a murder charge to manslaughter) or it can mitigate the punishment after the defendant has been found guilty of murder (reducing a death penalty to a life sentence, e.g.). So self-defense and murder are not always mutually exclusive.



In the U.K., imperfect self-defense is a mitigating factor in what is still called "murder".



In Maryland, imperfect self-defense and murder are mutually exclusive. (But I'm not sure my one citation is proof enough.)



Texas-Specific Rules



The Texas statutes under Title 5 (Offenses Against the Person), Chapter 19 (Criminal Homocide) set out the definitions for "Murder", "Capital Murder", "Manslaughter", and "Negligent Homocide". We'll just look at "Murder" and "Manslaughter" as being relevant here.




Sec. 19.02. MURDER.



(b) A person commits an offense if he:

⇒(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

⇒(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual



Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.




So in their basic definitions, it seems that deliberately shooting someone would qualify as "murder" regardless of self-defense being applied, while "manslaughter" would apply if the shooter was just aiming wildly in the dark trying to scare off the shootee or something similar.



The Texas statutes under Title 2 (General Principles Of Criminal Responsibility), Chapter 9 (Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility), Subchapter C (Protection Of Persons) provides defense-related definitions. Sections 9.31, 9.32, and 9.33 describe "Self Defense" (non lethal), "Deadly Force In Defense Of Person", and "Defense Of Third Person" (lethal or non-lethal), respectively.



Under those definitions, "self defense" explicitly refers to using non-lethal force against someone, while murder requires the use of deadly force. This means "self defense" (in this very narrow definition) and "murder" are mutually exclusive. However, it's clear from reading excerpts from pretty much any murder case that the term "self defense" is also used for lethal force cases in practice, so this logic doesn't hold for real-world cases.



Of note is that neither the homocide statutes nor the justification statutes mention anything about imperfect self-defense. Either you were defending yourself legally, or it was murder. However, there is common law related to the subject.




Appellant therefore was not entitled to have the self-defense issue submitted to the jury at the guilt-or-innocence phase of his trial. Nevertheless, his imperfect self-defense claim warranted submission of the provocation issue at the penalty phase.
Charles Evans v. State of Texas at the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas (1980) via Justia




.




Under the common law doctrine of imperfect self-defense, if a defendant merely intended to assault the victim and ended up killing him because of escalating violence that he did not intend, the actor would be acquitted of murder and convicted of another offense, depending on his culpability.
Sergio Huerta v. State of Texas at the Criminal District Court No. 2 (2008) via Justia




.




As explained below, imperfect self-defense … [is a] defensive issue that may be relevant in evaluating a claim of self-defense in certain cases.
Erick Santos-Valdez v. State of Texas at the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (2014) via Justia




In the 1980 case, imperfect self-defense was only useful in determining the sentence (specifically, death penalty vs. life sentence in this case), and not in determining the charges. In this case he was convicted of capital murder, but imperfect self-defense was at play in overturning his death penalty. So murder and imperfect self-defense were not mutually exclusive. (Appellant robbed a store and claims he only shot the manager because the manager shot first. Clearly, the appellant had no right to self-defense so the murder conviction was upheld, but because he was shooting defensively, it was a mitigating factor in the murder sentence.)



In the 2008 case, imperfect self-defense might have been used to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. So in that application, murder and self-defense were mutually exclusive. (Appellant shot in the air during a vehicle robbery to scare the victim. Victim shot appellant. Appellant claims he only walked to the vehicle and unloaded a magazine into the victim because he was surprised by being shot. Appeals court disagreed.)



In the 2014 case, imperfect self-defense is irrelevant to the case, but it's worth noting that the concept is still valid as of five years ago. (Appellant shot a man who was grappling him through the window of his car, after the appellant's friend tried to rob the man. The appeal summary isn't very specific on why this was murder, since it's only dealing with technicalities.)



Other-Than-Texas Rules



The UK still considers it murder, but allows mitigating the minimum term of the prison sentence, if self-defense was somewhat involved:




As murder is such a serious crime, the approach to sentencing for this offence is set out in law.



Mitigating factors are things that may reduce the minimum term. These include:



• the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence
Sentencing Council for England and Wales




The state of Maryland explicitly considers "murder" to include malice, while a legal defense of "imperfect self defense" explicitly requires proof there wasn't malice. As such, "self defense" and "murder" are mutually exclusive under legal definitions, while "self defense" and "manslaughter" are not.




Initially, we note that the difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.



Imperfect self defense, by contrast, is not a complete defense. Its chief characteristic is that it operates to negate malice, an element the State must prove to establish murder. As a result, the successful invocation of this doctrine does not completely exonerate the defendant, but mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter.
State of Maryland v. Melvin Faulkner at the Maryland Court of Appeals (1984) via Google Scholar








share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer










answered Oct 3 at 7:28









MichaelSMichaelS

1453 bronze badges




1453 bronze badges










  • 1





    "the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

    – Mazura
    Oct 4 at 1:13







  • 1





    @Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

    – user45266
    Oct 4 at 3:58












  • In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

    – gnasher729
    Oct 4 at 18:24












  • 1





    "the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

    – Mazura
    Oct 4 at 1:13







  • 1





    @Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

    – user45266
    Oct 4 at 3:58












  • In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

    – gnasher729
    Oct 4 at 18:24







1




1





"the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

– Mazura
Oct 4 at 1:13






"the fact that the offender acted to any extent in self-defence or in fear of violence" - woah. That's missing a temporal aspect. Doesn't that leave open, 'I shot him because I was afraid he would come back some day and murder me with a pick axe.' ? afaik, in US law, the word immediate (bodily harm) would be in there.

– Mazura
Oct 4 at 1:13





1




1





@Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

– user45266
Oct 4 at 3:58






@Mazura Devil's Advocate: Any fear of violence that far removed from the incident temporally is unreasonable, so the courts should not accept the self-defense argument anyway on the grounds that the defendant's belief that they were preventing violence upon themselves is unreasonable, making the "immediate" unnecessary, since "reasonable" allows courts to evaluate temporal details. (Of course, U.S. Law makes it more explicit by expressly defining self-defense with "immediate bodily harm", but that's not strictly required to prevent the scenario you proposed.)

– user45266
Oct 4 at 3:58














In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

– gnasher729
Oct 4 at 18:24





In the U.K. as far as I know “self defence” means you’re either innocent or completely guilty if the defence fails, nothing in between.

– gnasher729
Oct 4 at 18:24


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f45183%2fis-self-defense-mutually-exclusive-of-murder%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?