Talk:Justifiable homicide

message: 1.) A homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or well-being of another, in self-defense.
2.) To rule a justifiable homicide, one must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the victim intended to commit violence.
The first sentence states the standard as a reasonable belief of a threat to well-being. The second sentence states the standard as an intent in fact to commit violence.
73.235.245.1 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory lede

message: Stand-your-ground Law deserves a mention here and in what states it is already law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.206.63 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stand-your-ground law

message: I'm not convinced the Sweden section is notable enough to be included here. It provides no details other than that one police officer in Sweden got convicted of homicide at one point, and it's not really even relevant to the article, as it provides no specifics about Swedish law regarding justifiable homicide. I move it gets pulled. Jjcooper0811 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweden

message: "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the victim was clearly likely to kill an innocent if the defendant did not kill them."
Changing this, I don't see how the victim of the potential killer has to be innocent of anything for the killing of the potential killer to be justified, and if this is relevant, innocent of what? --Teeks 18:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that statement might be trying to clarify that, for example, a robber is not justified in shooting a police officer that points a gun at them. Regardless of what it's trying to say, it's too unclear. --67.165.6.76 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I'm not sure if this is because of my computer, but why are all the Wikified links on this page red instead of the usual blue (purple if visited)? All the other pages on Wikipedia have links that are blue/purple except for this one as far as I can tell. Pouchkidium 07:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm getting the same here.  Don't know what's wrong. Bigmike1020 03:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikified Links 

message: "Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill combatants could theoretically be prosecuted"
As many people who were anti-Vietnam believe the the war was unjust.  According to this statement  the war was in fact murder. But with that it raises the question of, because of the draft, were the soldiers that "murdered" in the war actually murdering or were they under duress(forced to usually by threat)However, there is no doubt that no prosecutor could win a case that large against the US Government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.49.38 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  undeclared war 

message: This article has no references at all. It's almost original research. I'm surprised it's not tagged yet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.16.34 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I have tagged it as unreferenced and possible original research.--Aervanath (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Missing 

message: The self defense law touching justifiable homicide, as explained to me in handgun permit class in the state of Tennessee, is actually very similar to the 1995 standardized deadly force policy for federal law enforcement in that use of lethal force is justified only if necessary in response to an imminent threat of death or grevious bodily harm to oneself or another person. Civilian self defense also requires meeting the test that "a reasonable person" would believe that the situation, based on what the defender knew, justified fear of death or bodily harm if the defender did not act then and there. There is no judicial finding of "justifiable homicide": homicide charges are not filed, a grand jury returns no bill, a petit jury acquits, a judge sets aside a jury verdict of guilty, or an appellate court overturns a conviction, any of these if the evidence supports a justification of self-defense. Justifiable homicide is not treated lightly, and although a few obvious cases of killing of a felon during commission of a felony are adjudicated by police report, most are actually adjudicated much higher in the justice system, by coroner, medical examiner, district attorney, grand jury, petit jury, trial judge or appellate court. An escalating mutual combat in which the "defender" was a willing participant and which ends in death, or a killing motivated by anger or hatred rather than fear of death or mayhem, is not likely to be adjudicated as a justifiable homicide. This article needs the input of defense lawyers, prosecutors, trial judges, appellate court judges and criminologists with knowledge of the subject. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  self defense and justifiable homicide 

message: It may be noteworthy that in California "Homicide is justifiable ... when necessarily committed in attempting [to lawfully suppress] any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace." --199.80.152.201 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  California penal Code 197.4 

message: Homidide is defined as a human killing another human. If a human kills a human fetus, that they are clearly still killing a human. There is practically no sifference between a human inside of a womb and one outside the womb ecpect for the fact that beings inside the womb are less devolped humans, but then new born babys are far from being fully devoloped and that doesn't mean they're not human - the fact that they are an organism with human tisue is sufficient. Robo37 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is abortion not mentioned? 

message: 1.)
In the "United States" section,
"In the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[1] New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat in certain situations (depending on the state, this may apply to one's home, business, or vehicle, or to any public place where a person is lawfully present)."
My question is about the "or to any public place where a person is lawfully present)" component of the castle doctrine. I'm just a second year law student, but my understanding of the difference between "stand your ground" statutes and common law and statutory manifestations of the castle doctrine is that in states that adhere to the castle doctrine but not "stand your ground" laws, the duty to retreat does not exist in certain, specifically enumerated places or classes of places. To my yet-immature legal mind this means that if the castle doctrine includes the proposition that the defendant has no duty to retreat from an attacker when he is in "any public place where [the defendant] is lawfully present," then there is no difference between the castle doctrine and "stand your ground" statutes.
Since the defendant has the right to be in any public space subject to certain restrictions (e.g. hours), does the generalized version of the castle doctrine explained in the article imply that the defendant has no duty to retreat from an attacker when she and the attacker are separated by a large space such as a city park? Is the duty to retreat essentially rolled back to places in which one has no legal right to be? I have not read all of the states' statutes cited in the article, but for this to be true would surprise me.
2.)
A minor quibble with the grammar in the "United States" section:
"A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States."
To reverse the voice of this sentence for my sake, does one "call a non-criminal homicide" at some stage in criminal procedure? Does the verb "call" have some specific or anachronistic legal meaning?
Hellhounds88 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: A recent change in UK laws now enables spouses to use a partial defence based on "prolonged domestic violence", even in cases where there was no immediate danger involved (e.g. a wife killing her sleeping husband). 
This groundbreaking change in Western law should be reflected in the article, but due to an apparent near-complete media blackout on the issue, sources are hard to come by. Many news articles mention this change in passing, but so far I've had no luck finding a source specifically discussing it. Any help finding sources would be highly appreciated. Here is one source just to prove that I'm not making this up or anything. --84.44.229.83 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Justifiable homicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120403131201/http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm to http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justifiable homicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218065028/http://www.crisa.org.za/section_49.pdf to http://www.crisa.org.za/section_49.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have noticed that somebody has added "Antivaxxers" to the list of conditions of a "Justifiable Homicide", I believe this is incorrect and facetious. 2600:1700:8A00:8910:18DB:C7D8:1396:F25C (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Antivaxxers?" 

message: I am doubtful that this is correct as a matter of international law. If a soldier is part of a lawful chain of command, wears distinctive insignia, bears arms openly, and fights according to the rules and customs of war, then he is a lawful combatant and entitled to protection as a prisoner of war if captured. If I'm not mistaken, this is a cornerstone of humanitarian international law going back to Grotius, who based this Enlightenment view of war on the assumption that it is always possible that yours will turn out to be the side in the wrong in a war, and you must treat POWs as if there is at least a theoretical possibility that their side will turn out to be in the right. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct. The passage is unsourced anyway; it should be removed.JMM12345 (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons engaging in an unjust war could theoretically be prosecuted