The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-29

To avail ones self OF the right OF self-de-
fense in "a combat one must toTe's sec be
without fault
In the instance cssea in the hypothetical
question, the defendant was ~ fault By
having violated statute OF the state OF
Washington. which makes Il nlissesmeanor
TO attempt 10 provoke or TO provoke a
quarrel
The defendant further violated the law
b. actually committing an assault, oy
Shaping or striking T..
The Law presumes that when a nan pro-
vokes a combat he stands ready to take It's
consequences. even IL trey 60 to the extent
OF danger 10 his life.
II. however, the assaiian. retreats or
with9raws from the combat and lets the
one whom he has assaulted know that he
has withdrawn. and IL thereafter the one
who was assaiied pursues the assaaiant or
further attacks him. the assailant may de-
fend himself even to the extent OF taking
life, provided there ls reasonable fear
that his own life Is In danger
In the instance given in the hypothetical
case, 1t IL not made evident that the as
saiiant AZ any time withdrew from the
contest or manifested desire tn 90 so. His
status. as original assailan' therefore was
not at any time altered and he was not in
position to avail himself OF the right OF
sesf~isfense.
support Of Justification.
On the other hand, the opinions support
Ing the justification Of the homicide are
based upon two main considerations.
Fifs,-The assAiant was attacked by
force disproportiona;. to that with which
he made The assault. and was therefore
Justified In resorting TO the use OF his pis-
toll
Second-The assailamt by being thrown
To the ground was rendered hors de COM
bat. or was, In effect, Withdrawing or re-
treating. and thus constituted himself
Justified in measure Of defense. even 10
the extreme limit
The attorneys who answer the hyrothet-
teal question In the negative consider the
case a very critical one. Said Judge Bal
iiHger; You might Az we'll abolish the
criminal courts II you allow such a hoinl-
eide 70 be justiiiabie.''
Judge Thomas ]. Husnes said: III you
allow every small and weak man to XIII
big men upon such fimsy grounds, the big
usn might as well quit living and the
world be given up 10 an irhabitatiun OF
dwarfs and erippies.'
The following were the opinions upon
the hypothetical question:
Judge Hunaes: ..No, tho homicide is not
JntEffa bic A provoked the quarrel and was
responsible for the initial breaking OF the
law The consequences ensuing, therefore
y
Cooperation Counsel William +. Humph-
rey. Ne the homicide Ia not iustifiabl..
The right 20 claim sslf-defense disa ppears
owing TO the provocation of the quarrel"
II II Aianslaughter.
John Is. Alien expressed himself cate
goriceaiiy: 1T Is uIanslaughter'
Judge John +. HumphrieS. for many
years a prosecuting attorney, set forth
very clearly the views npon the negative
as outlined AT the opening OF this article.
Said he: mo. the homicide is not justi-
fable The question ~ whether A was
guilty Of murder in the rfr~s or second de-
gree. lie violated the law ny provoking the
law ana By making the assault upon e.
He did not subsequently withdraw from
the combat. He had therefore no justisica-
ton"
Ex-tfnited States Dlstr'st Attorney
William IT. Bfinker ANSWERED. No the
homicide Is not justifiabe. A Was guilty
az nranslasghter. lie provoked the as
satilI. There vac no withdrawal made
1ie had no right 10 seIf-aefenae -
Former Prosecuting Attorney A. w
f'ass1e said: THE answer would dspena
Very largely upon the circnmstantial de-
tails which could oe shown To a Jury. hux
the surface - thu question / am in
cisnsi 20 think tho homicide would 10, be