What do you need to do to prove self defense?

Say you awaken in the middle of the night to someone breaking into your house. You go out there and see this man is armed with a pistol, so you take action, and shoot this man, killing him, before he can take action and kill you, or your family/others living with you.

Obviously a smart person would call the police after an incident like this, and it would be investigated. Would charges even be brought up? How would this home owner prove himself in a court of law, if they were taken to court?

I ask this, because it seems so easy that you could set something like this up. Like, what if you invite someone (that you're plotting against) over to your house, and as they come in the door, you shoot them, and then try to play the self defense card? How are these cases looked at?

It almost makes one scared to fight back against an intruder for being in fear of being prosectued and charged with a crime, because it probably isn't rare for people to plan these kinds of things.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. Outside of the United States, the Castle Doctrine is sometimes pejoratively referred to as a "Make My Day" law [1] [2], a reference to Dirty Harry.

Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

Other states have a stand-your-ground clause, or no duty to retreat policy which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. In states where Castle Law is included as a part of a larger personal-self-defense law, there may be a duty to retreat if the altercation happens in a place outside the home; even though there is no duty to retreat if the altercation happens at the home.

Stand-your-ground laws (sometimes called shoot-first laws by critics) are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another." [3]

In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated-

The doctrine of 'retreat to the wall' had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[4]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

Self Defense Case Law

Self Defense Case Law

If a woman has been physically abused by her husband is it ok for her to kill him as self defense? :S?

im taking a law class and were working on a case where a woman has been physically abused and she has "battered wife syndrome." she got pushed to an extent where she shot him in the back of the head and called it self defense. she used a 303 rifle.

It would depend on the state and the jury. There's what they call the "Burning Bed Defense", which allows that a woman who has been battered severely might kill in self defense even though she's not actually being beaten at the time. The name comes from a case where the battered wife lit the bed on fire to kill her abusive husband. There was a movie made of this back in the late 70's or early 80's, starring Farah Fawcett. Generally, it wouldn't be considered self defense if she shot him from behind. It would be assumed she could have gotten away. The argument is that she has been battered so much that she doesn't realize there are other ways to get away. Whether a jury or judge will buy that is another matter.

Self Defense Case Law
Virender Singh case suggest review of self-defence law

Self Defense Case Law

Could Not Find What You Are Looking For? Search Below

Tags: home, law, politics, self defense case law, selfdefense, tips