The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1905-02-25
SeIf-Defense,

Seif-Defense.
1t is a matter of Importance that ono t-
how far he may go in using force agajns- force n
the defence of himself, his family and his prapor+.
The right of selfdefence viii occur to us .- bo..
natural right. One could scarcely be expected ,rb.r
attacked, either in person or in property ro ... ~
will wait for the law to punish the aggrc-s,r .ar
| the attacked has no means of knowing how a..
the attacking party may go in the use of violence
as he even may go to the extent of taking ill.,.
Then, too, the law recognizes a wcakuc-5 ~ b,..
man nature-or shall we call it strength rath, that
impels one when attacked to defend himself b, tbo
use of force. ScIfpreseryation is truly the tr.-
law Of nature
The law of 5elf-defence is an old one. recognized
from the beginning 1t extends not only TO one.
own person but ones own family and possession.
The old law speaks of mans home as his .cas.so
and gave him the right to defend it. even TO the
extent of taking life; with certain Limitations
which will learn, that right still exists
Of course there must be limitation pur upon
the right of selfdefence or it will be abused. and
men, under cover of the excuse that they were Dur
to act of violence by necessity, viii cover up acts
which unjustifiable and hence punishable. The
law, broadly speaking, limits the right to case,
where necessity exists and it will only excuse man
when he uses that violence which, under the circum
stances, would appeal to a reasonable man as neces
sary for his self-protecton. Nor will court COM
pei him to exercise the best of judgment at the time
for it recognizes that when the occasion for self
defence presents itself, the mind of the one att
tackled Is more or less disturbed and the even bal
ance of his judgment shaken; but where the means
taken to defend ones self are manifesty more than
necessary, as where on slapped in the face draws
revolver and kills, the act Will be considered I'M
justfiabe and the perperator of it held to account
but if the person attacked has reasonable grounds
for fearing that killing or a felony is being at
tempted by the attacking party the defence may go
to the extent of taking life. 1t is well decided that
where is merely struck with the fist and has No
reasonable grounds for believing that he is in dam
ger of being killed or of felony being committed
his use of gun, knife, or deadly weapon is un-
justifiable.
The fact that the person defending himself was
mistaken as to the intention of his assailant does
not affect his right to take life if there appeared to
him at the time reasonable grounds to believe that
unless he did so he would be killed or a felony would
be perpetrated against him. 1t has been held that
the mere fact that the assalant put his hand in his
pocket was not sufficient to justify the taking of
the assailans life the ground that the assailan
was believed to be reaching for weapon
Suppose that the person called upon to defend
himself had been himself the provoker of the quar-
rel or the immediate cause of the attack would his
subsequent of violent means in self-deefnce be
justified under the rules laid down. The question
has arisen in many cases and has usually been
decided in the negative. The person himself must
'e free from fault in order to justify himself for
,illing another.
The cases go to the extent of saying that anyone
Who brings on provokes personal encounter
annot rely upon the plea of self defence We can
quickly sec that if the law were permitted to be
therwise one desiring to Kill another would only
ave to provoke that other sufficiently to cause him
use violence In order to take his life and escape
ne consequences The main question as to whether
7 not the force used could have reasonably been
eemed necessary is question to be left to the
etermination of the jury in all cases
1t Is also OF interest to ask whether man at
aeked is bound to retreat. 1t is quite well decided
~ INN " man 10 dttdcheu Win dangerous
eapon ne must retreat as far he can safely do
D before using like means in defending himself.
ut where the one attacked has reasonable grounds
or believing that he cannot safely retreat he is
lstltlod IN using violence in self-defence. The
ght OF sef-defence goes to the extent of executing
man for resisting arrest by violence where at at
mpted arrest is unlawful.
How far one may go in the defence OF his prop
ty, or possessions, is reserved for treatment in
lbsequent article
Go be Continued)
LITERARY TOPICS.