Milford chronicle., 1905-02-03
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW.
SeIf peIence.


/ fCopyrighted by william c. sprasue, PTesi,
deaf The sprague Correspondence School
OF Law
1t is a matter Of Importance that one know
how far he may go IN using force against
force In the defence OF himself,his family ana
his property. The right OF self-defence viii
occur to us as being q natural right one
could scarcely be expected when attacked,
either In person or in property, to say II Will
wait for the law to punish the assressor'"
for the one attacked has no means Of know
ing how far the attacking party may go In
the use Of violence, as he even may go to the
extent Of taking life.
Then, too, the law recognizes weakness IN
human nature-or shall we call It strength
rather. that impels one when attacked to de-
fend himself by the use Of force. Seif-preser-
walton Is truly the first law of nature.
The law OF self-defence is an old one, recog-
nized from the beginning. II extends not
only to ones own person, but to ones own
family and possessions. The old law speaks
OF a mans home as his "castle" and gave him
the right to defend It, even to the extent OF
taking life; with certain limitations which
we will learn that right stan exists.
OF course there must be Limitation put
upon the right OF selfdefenee or It will be
abused, and men, under cover OF the excuse
that they we're put to an act Of violence by
necessity win cover up acts which are unJus-
tifable and hence punishable, The law
broadly speaking, limits the right to cases
where necessity exists, and 1t will only excuse
a man wher he uses that violence which
under the circumstances would appeal to a
reasonable man as necessary for his self-pro-
lection. Nor will a court compel him to ex-
ercise he best of judgment at the time,for II
recognizes that when the occasion for seif-de-
fence presents Itself the miRd Of the one at
tackled is more or less disturbed and the even
balance of his judgment shaken; but where
the means taken to defend ones selfare man.
ifestly more than necessary, as where one
slapped in the face draws a revolver and kills,
the act will be considered unjustihable and
the perpetratOr OF It held to account; but II
the person attacked has reasonable ground
for fearing that killing or felony is being
attempted by the attacking party the defence
may go TO the extent Of taking life. It is
well decided that where one is merely struck
with the fist aud has no reasonable grounds
for believing that he is in danger OF being
killed or OF felony being com mmitted, his use
OF gun or a knife or deadly weapon is unius-
tifiable
The fact that the person defending himself
was mistaken as to the intention Of his as
sailant does not affect his rigut 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 perpe-
trated against him. 1t has been held that
the mere fact that the assailant put his hand
in his pocket was not sufficient to justify the
taking Of the assailants life on the ground
- ,H.4,sI
for a weapon.
Suppose that the person called apon to de-
fend himself had been himself the prOvOker
efthe quarrel or the immediate cause OF the
attack, would his subsequent use OF violent
means in selfdefence be justified under the
rules laid down2 The question has arisen in |
many cases and has usually been decided in
the negative. The person himself must be
free from fault in order to justify himself for /
killing another
The cases go 70 the extent Of saying that
anyone who briSgs on or prOvokes personal
cannot rely upon the plea of self
defence. We can quickly see that If the law
were permitted to be otherwise, one desiring
to kill another would only have to provoke
that other sufficient to cause him TO use vio-
Ienee in order to take his life and escape the
whether or not the force used could have rea-
sonably been deemed necessary is a question
to be left to the determination of the jury in
all cases.
It is also OF interest to ask whether man
attacked is bound to retreat 1t is quite well
decided that when a man Is attacked with
dangerous weapon he must retreat as far as
he can safely do so before using like means
In defending himself; but where the one at
tackled has reasonable grounds for believing
that he can not safely retreat he is justified
In using violence in selfdefence. The right
Of selEdefence goes to the extent Of excusing
a man for resisting arrest by violence where
The attempted arrest is unlawful.
How far one may go in the defence Of his
or possessions, is reserved for treat
ment / n a subsequent article.
ITO be continuedl