Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1913-07-11
The Rioht of Self Defense


where Rice rushed upon Devlin and
struck at him, though he failed to
touch him. Thus assaulted Devlin
took vigorous action and proceeded
sensbility. The public prosecutor
proceeded against Deylin in a Grim
inal action for assault and battery,
and he was found guilty and fined.
Rice also sued Devlin in a civil ac
| ton for assault and battery and re-
| covered damages. Devlin claimed that
he had acted only in self defense.
While there is right self defense
recognized by law is it not broad
enough to cover an action such as
Devlin's. One whose person is as
saulted may defend himself; but in
| defending himself he may not use
| more force than is reasonably neceS-
sary under the circumstances. If you
are assaulted you may strike back,
but you may not strike back more
vigorously than is necessary to de-
| fend your person from the threatened
attack. In this case Devlin was JUS
titled in resisting Rice. Rice having
been resisted, and having ceased to
attack, however, Devlin was not JUS
titled in continuing further. In do
| ing SO he became the a3Sailant and
MS further action was a new assault
and battery for which he was liable
| both in civil suit for damages and
in a criminal action. The law does
not require that the vigor of the de-
tense be absolutely adjusted to the
gi9Or of the attack, since it reco3
nizes that this is not always posi-
ole of accurate determination. 1t is
required, however, that the defend
| II do not step beyond the bounds
| If reason in his acts of defense
AS the New York Court has re-
marked:
Self defense is a primary law of
nature, aud it is an excuse for
breaches of the peace, and even for
homicide itself. But care must be Ia
Ken that the resistance does not eX-
| ICED the bounds of mere defense, pre-
jention or recovery, so as to become
! Yindctive; for then the defender
would himself become the aggressor.
rhe force used must not exceed the
necessity of the case"
To justify the use of force on the
ground that it was in self defense
| here must have been an actual at
.empt to offer bodily harm. The at
tack resisted must be apparently real.
Self defense may not be claimed
when the force was eXerted after the
danger of attack had passed The
threatening assault having passed,
there is no longer any need for self
defense
The means that a person may take
in his own defense must depend, Of
course, upon the particular danger
which threatens. A degree of force
may be used in self defense equal
70 the degree of force with which
he defender is attacked Killing an
| 4ssailant may even become justifi-
tally where he attacks with deadly
weapon.
O'Malley and Grady had had many
quarrels and finally one arose which
was particularly bitter Grady Wig
orously threatened to kill his adver-
sary on sight. Later in the day they
met and Grady at once assaulted o.
Malley with large club dealing him
several serious blows about the
head. Unable to ward off these blows
O'Malley drew his pistol and fired,
killing Grady. He was tried on a
charge of manslaughter, but held not
guilty, the jury finding that he had
acted in reasonable self defense
AS a general rule one may kill an
assailant when it is apparently nee
essary in order to save himself from
death or great bodily harm, while in
| the midst OF sudden combat which
he has not himself provoked. Gener-
ally speaking, the law requires that
the person attacked retreat, if posi-
BILE, before he may kill an assailant
and claim self defense as a justifica-
ton. The person attacked need not
retreat if to do so would place him
!
he must retreat even though to do
SO would not apparently improve his
position. There are some states in
which the courts hold that a person
attacked may stand his ground under
practically all circumstances, but
such rule is rather exceptional.
&c "a III al