Not guilty defense nomenclature A Deputy fired after putting knee on Black man's neck.. The news article reports: A relative of the man was arrested when she tried to intervene, according to the news report. Let us assume that kneeling on the neck is criminal: In the unlikely event that state prosecutes said relative, what principle / defense would her counsel engage to support a plea of not guilty?
Most people would refer to this as &quot;defense of others.&quot; In North Carolina, though, the relevant statute, G.S. 14-51.3, formally refers to this as &quot;Use of force in defense of person.&quot; The statute allows a defense against criminal and civil liability for non-deadly force used &quot;against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.&quot; Note, however, that the statute does not allow you to invoke the defense when the victim &quot;is a law enforcement officer ... was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and ... identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law.&quot; This raises the question of whether the officer in this case was &quot;lawfully acting in the performance of his official duties&quot; when the relative intervened. If he was, the defense would likely be unavailable.
england-and-wales Alice's defence will be that she had an honest belief, given the circumstances, that force was necessary and the force she used was reasonable in defence of John (and possibly Alice). John's consent is irrelevant unless it had some bearing on that. Why did John oppose the use of force? Did John tell Alice not to shoot because he would rather die than cause a death? Irrelevant. Did John tell Alice not to shoot because he believed Bob was not a real threat due to circumstances X, Y and/or Z that he wanted Alice to heed? Relevant.
Defendants cannot switcheroo whenever they want. There are good reasons why this is almost never done. The lawyer in any of these scenarios is violating an ethical duty of candor to the tribunal, if it is done without court permission (which is unlikely to be granted), even if the client suggested or insisted upon the idea. The lawyer would be responsible for his or her client's actions by cooperating in it, rather than calling out his client in open court over the objections of the client to prevent the switcheroo from working, as the lawyer would have an ethical obligation to do. I would not really consider this to be a gray area. The relevant ethical rules and the related official commentaries to them are quite clear, even if they are not absolutely perfectly clear. Those rules create an affirmative duty of an attorney to prevent his or her client from misleading members of a tribunal (either a judge or a jury or both). Cooperating with this scheme could (and likely would) result in professional licensure related sanctions ranging from a private censure to disbarment for the lawyer, just as it did in the linked 1994 case. Also, while a "not guilty" verdict was entered in the 1994 case, the prosecution would have a good chance of success if they demanded that the judge declare a mistrial, and also a good chance of avoiding double jeopardy limitations in this situation, because the mistrial arose from the actions of the defendant trying to bring about the situation. On the other hand, if this trick worked so well that the prosecutors came to the conclusion that their primary witness linking the defendant to the crime was wrong and that the defendant was not actually the person who committed the crime, the prosecutors would have an ethical duty to not attempt to prosecute the individual whom the prosecutors now believed to be factually innocent (the analysis is actually a bit more complex than that, but that is the gist of it). The defendant and the attorney could (and likely would) also each be held in direct, punitive contempt of court by the judge for this conduct, allowing them to be summarily punished by imprisonment or a fine to an extent similar to a misdemeanor violation, on the spot, without a trial other than an opportunity to explain themselves to the judge in a sentence or two each, since it would be conduct in violation of the good order of the court and disrespectful of its rules and decorum conducted in the actual courtroom in the presence of the judge. Each could easily end up spending several months in jail on the spot for that stunt and perhaps a $1,000 fine each, if the judge was sufficiently displeased. There would be a right to appeal this contempt of court sanction, but the contempt of court punishment would almost surely be upheld on appeal in these circumstances. In a case where the criminal defendant faces extremely severe sanctions if found guilty, such as the death penalty or life in prison, and the defense attorney was a self-sacrificing idealist or close family member of the criminal defendant, one could imagine the defense attorney and client deciding that the professional and contempt citation sanctions were worth being punished with, in order to save the life of the criminal defendant, if they also were convinced that this trick would work so well that the prosecutors would be persuaded of the criminal defendant's innocence sufficiently to not insist on retrying the criminal defendant in a new trial. This would be somewhat analogous to an intentional foul in basketball, but with much higher stakes. But, this would be an extraordinarily rare situation in court, because the punishment for this "intentional foul" in the courtroom are much more severe, and because the likelihood of it producing a beneficial result is much smaller. It isn't hard to understand why a successful switcheroo feels morally justified. It prevents a witness whose testimony would have been much less reliable than it actually would have been from being used to convict a criminal defendant who might conceivably be factually innocent. And it might be very hard to discredit the testimony of that witness in any other way in order to prevent a wrongful conviction of the criminal defendant. Eye witness misidentifications are one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions, and are especially common in death penalty cases because jurors are "death qualified" making them more pro-prosecution than a typical jury. Preventing innocent people from being convicted of crimes is one of several important values of the criminal justice system, and this is the instinct that probably motivated the dissents in the professional misconduct process in the 1994 case. But, the court system also strongly values candor on the part of attorneys, and likewise values not having the court systems be used to trip up witnesses who may sincerely think that they are telling the truth even if they are mistaken about the accuracy of their testimony, in a deceptive manner. In this situation, the latter candor consideration usually prevails, because the rules prohibiting this kind of conduct and scheme, which admits no "moral justification" or "necessity exception", are quite clear. In the same vein, a prosecuting attorney can be sanctioned (and has been on at least one occasion in Colorado) for not being truthful in communications to third parties, even when the lies are used to peacefully defuse a potentially deadly hostage situation. For attorneys, the duty of candor and truthfulness really knows no exceptions. Cops, in contrast, however, are allowed to lie in many circumstances to secure confessions or stop criminals.
Federal Civil Rights Liability Qualified immunity is a doctrine that applies to lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking compensation for an intentional violation of constitutional rights under color of state law. The qualified immunity inquiry is not reached in the first place if the prima facie case is not established because the conduct allegedly violating a constitutional right under color of state law, even if it is a well established constitutional right (i.e. one memorialized in a reported and controlling appellate court decision that is factually similar), if the action was merely negligent rather than intentional. Thus, most likely, there is no federal civil remedy to the victim, unless even the use of the taser would have been a violation of a well established constitutional right under color of state law. Non-deadly force, like a taser, is subject to a lower threshold of justification than deadly force, like a firearm. Of course, under general Fourth Amendment principles applicable to the states, an attempted arrest which appears to be what the OP describes, must be supported by probable cause that a crime was committed for which an arrest would be authorized. So, if this is the violation of rights alleged, there may be a federal civil rights remedy. But, further examination of the facts show that there was apparently a warrant for the arrest of the person shot outstanding. So the officer probably has a legal basis to use non-deadly force to make an arrest pursuant to the outstanding warrant, but probably did not have a legal basis to use deadly force to make an arrest. Federal Criminal Liability The most common charge under federal criminal law for excessive use of force by a police officer, is a criminal violation of civil rights. But this, like the civil remedy, requires a showing of an intentional violation of civil rights which the OP tends to suggest is absent unless the officer lacked probable cause to make an arrest. State Law Civil Liability At the state level, law enforcement officers acting under color of state law are immune from civil liability except as authorized by state law in an exception to sovereign immunity. Generally, there is no exception to sovereign immunity for a negligent use of force by a police officer. So, the police officer probably can't be sued successfully by the victim's estate under state law. State Criminal Law Considerations For criminal law purposes, whether or not the law enforcement officer's actions were a crime under state law would dependent upon both the elements of the offense: probably manslaughter or negligent homicide in this case, and the scope of force authorized under state law in the case of a law enforcement officer seeking to arrest a fleeing suspect. Usually, under state law, the use of reasonable force to make an arrest supported by probable cause is allowed and the use of deadly force to make an arrest support by probable cause is allowed only if there is a threat to the public based upon probable cause to believe that a particularly serious violent felony was committed. Qualified immunity is not applicable to state criminal law liability, although express statutory defenses in a state criminal statute might be similar in some cases. Caveat Of course, all of that analysis assumes that the story of the officer's motive and intentions was truthful. There is very good reason to be skeptical of this fact and to believe that the use of a firearm was not a negligent mistake, and that race was a motivating factor. Simply saying that one's motives were good is not a free pass and a jury doesn't have to believe the law enforcement officer.
Murder Which is the unlawful taking of a life with intent to do so. However, the doctrine of self-defence can make killing lawful: A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. if the prosecutor is of the opinion that the force used "is reasonable in the circumstances" they may not lay charges. If they do lay charges the judge may decide that there is no case to answer before going to trial if self-defence applies. If there is a trial this will probably be the strategy the defence employs and they may or may not be successful. If convicted the penalty is life imprisonment. Also, there is no UK law: there is the law of England and Wales, the law of Scotland and the law of Northern Ireland.
A not guilty plea is not part of the case of a defendant or a defense attorney. A &quot;case&quot; refers to evidence and argument made at trial (or conceivably in a pre-trial hearing). The rule in question specifically contemplates a defense attorney entering a not guilty plea for a client who has confessed to the lawyer that the client is guilty of the crime (emphasis added). If at any time before or during a defended trial a client makes a clear confession of guilt to his or her defence lawyer, the lawyer may continue to act only if the plea is changed to guilty OR the lawyer— (a) does not put forward a case inconsistent with the confession; and (b) continues to put the prosecution to proof and, if appropriate, asserts that the prosecution evidence is inadequate to justify a verdict of guilty; and (c) does not raise any matter that suggests the client has an affirmative defence such as an alibi, but may proceed with a defence based on a special case such as insanity, if such a course appears in the lawyer’s professional opinion to be available. The attorney can argue that the defendant should be released from custody prior to trial, and over what terms of pre-trial release are appropriate. The attorney can advise the client not to do anything else that would make it easier for the prosecution to prove the client committed the crime (e.g. advising the client not to brag about having committed the crime on social media). The attorney can advise the client on how to behave in the courtroom so as to avoid contempt of court sanctions, and how to dress and behave appropriately and in a manner that the court will find to be sympathetic (e.g. wearing a suit to court, acting respectfully, not speaking ill of the victim). There are a variety of defenses not inconsistent with guilt that are available: One can argue that the statute of limitations has run. One can argue that the court that the case is being tried before does not have jurisdiction over the offense. One can argue that the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the law, or after it was repealed (if relevant). One can argue that the law in invalid under human rights treaties or similar grounds for invalidity. One can argue that the defendant has immunity from prosecution (e.g. due to diplomatic immunity, or because the defendant was acting pursuant to lawful military or court orders, or because of an agreement reached with a prosecutor previously perhaps in exchange for testimony in another case, or because the defendant acted based upon assurances from an authority upon whom he was entitled to rely that his actions would not be punished) One can argue that evidence is inadmissible for some legally recognized reason (e.g. lack of authentication or doctor-patient privilege or a marital privilege). One can argue that the facts presented by the prosecution don't establish the elements of the crime charged (e.g. no evidence has been presented that permission to use the property was not granted in a trespass case). One can argue that the facts presented don't establish the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt even if some evidence is presented (but subject to limitations on what kinds of doubts may be suggested). One can make an insanity defense, or a lack of capacity to commit a crime defense. One can argue that a justification (e.g. self-defense) excuses the crime. In the U.S., an attorney could implicitly or even expressly make a jury nullification argument, but I do not know if this would be permitted in New Zealand or not. But one cannot argue, for example, that a different individual than your client committed the crime, or that the crime didn't happen at all. This ethical limitation, by the way, is much more restrictive than the limitation under U.S. law, which prohibits an attorney from introducing evidence or testimony known to be false or fraudulent, but does not generally prohibit making arguments based upon possible inferences from the true facts that the attorney knows to be false inferences (i.e. the facts are true, but the conclusions that the lawyer asks the court to draw from the facts are not consistent with what really happened). For example, a U.S. attorney could argue in a case with several co-defendants, that the victim might have been assaulted by one of the co-defendants rather than his client, based upon the evidence available, while a New Zealand attorney whose client had confessed to having assaulted the victim, couldn't ethically make that argument. A defense lawyer in either the U.S. or New Zealand could find a forensic science article showing that the technique used to link the bullet to the gun by police investigators is unreliable and use it to cross-examine a prosecution forensic expert. But, a New Zealand lawyer, unlike a U.S. lawyer, could probably not argue that there is alibi evidence putting your client on the other side of town at the time that the coroner erroneously believes the time of death to have occurred. Of course, any counsel or advocacy provided by defense counsel in connection with a sentencing phase of the proceeding would also not be inconsistent with this ethical rule and, in practice, much of the value that a defense attorney adds to the process for a defendant comes at that stage of the case.
So first things first, whether or not Stand Your Ground is in play, the burden of proof is always on the State to prove any crime did happen and any defense does not. Another thing that I think you confused in your question is it seems apparent that you think Stand Your Ground is Self Defense. This is not true. In the United States, self-defense is always a legal right for a victim of a potential crime, regardless of if your state has Stand Your Ground or Duty to Flee laws. Self-Defense typically can include justifiable homicide as you are not privy to the intent of the bad actor. Under Duty To Flee laws, you cannot claim self defense if you could reasonably get away from a criminal action safely... if given the choice between fight or flight, you must flee the scene. Stand Your Ground contradicts this and says that if you are in a public place and a criminal is trying to make you a victim, you have every right to defend yourself without any duty to remove yourself from the situation first... basically at this point, you can make either choice and not worry about losing justifiable Homicide. Making a criminal arrest of a Stand Your Ground claimant at the seen is not necessarily required. While the claim may be disputed, in the case of firearms, using an illegally owned weapon is typically ground for arrest regardless... (probably not in cases where the illegal gun was introduced to the scene by the dead criminal... and the victim picked it up in a scuffle... though this requires some measure of sorting out). Legal Fire Arms are very well documented and the fire arm in question will be confiscated as evidence. If it is found that it was not a justifiable homicide, the person in question is probably at the address tied to the gun. Now, again, Stand Your Ground only applies to steps needed for Self-Defense, it is not self-defense itself. Self-Defense authorizes only the amount of force needed to safely resolve the situation, up to and including leathal force, but it does not require you to kill the perpetrator in every instance it is invoked. For example, if merely pointing a gun at a perpetrator is enough to stop the crime, you do not get to pull the trigger. That flips it back into homicide. Similarly, if I pull my gun and the guy advances anyway, I may fire and if the guy is on the ground and out cold (thus, no longer a threat), I don't get to walk up, and put a second bullet between his eyes, execution style. This too is murder. As a bit of anecdotal evidence, when I was living in Florida, I worked for a man who just recently purchased a firearm for self-defense (in the home only) and he said that when he was filling out paperwork with the police, the cop looking over his paperwork said, "Now remember, if you have to use that, shoot to kill. It's less paperwork for us." Now, I wasn't there when to cop said it, I don't know what his tone was. I took it as the cop being a little funny, but maybe a little inappropriate. I cannot speak to how much that is indicitive of FL Police culture. It was hearsay on my part... I just thouht it was funny and... demonstrates the attitude towards self-defense. Essentially, by the time cops arrive at the scene, they HARD PART is over... they merely have to collect evidence and take witness statements. If the shooter is cooperating and his story checks out, it will look very bad if they detain a crime victim who defended himself. It's just bad PR. Ultimately, his job is to collect all evidence, not determine if the case should go to trial. As I mentioned, the gun was legally owned in the specific case, and more than likely the CCTV tape is collected, but not yet viewed. Hindsight may be 20/20 but at the time, I do not think it's fair to say that the cop knew this might not be such a clear cut case. In such cases, the cop may not make an arrest because there is not any crime that he can charge the man with and he is cooperating. And keep in mind that in the heat of the moment for the shooter, he may not even realize he did something that might break his self-defense case. Cops can detain a person claiming Stand Your Ground for just about any legitimate reason, even suspicion of homicide that the detainee will claim is self-defense.
To provide an initial answer, without getting to the specific of the 51 statutory standards for self-defense in U.S. states and the exact Canadian standard, as applied to your examples, I'll make some general observations: Self-defense is a justification for doing something that would otherwise be illegal (intentionally using force against someone else). Self-defense justifications include a sense of proportionality. It isn't proper to use more force than is reasonably necessary to achieve the defensive objective. There are basically two levels of self-defensive force: Deadly Force and Non-Deadly Force. Preventing some crimes and harms is statutorily justified to do using deadly force (e.g. to prevent a murder). To prevent other crimes and harms statutes only justify the use of non-deadly force (e.g. to prevent shoplifting). The exact list of crimes in each category varies somewhat. Historically, for example, there have been some U.S. states that have authorized the use of deadly force to prevent a rape that does not put the life of the victim at risk, and others that have not authorized the use of deadly force for that purpose (I don't know if that is still the case). Typically, law enforcement officers are also authorized to use deadly force in some circumstances in which a non-deputized civilian could not. As a practical matter, a use of force that causes death is presumptively considered to be deadly force, even if the means used are not inherently deadly in all circumstances. Meanwhile, a use of force involving the use of a &quot;deadly weapon&quot; such as a firearm, is presumptively considered to be deadly force, even if it doesn't actually kill someone. But both of these &quot;presumptions&quot; (and I am using that term loosely in this answer, rather than with its precise legal meaning), can be overcome with relevant evidence. Mildly shoving someone with hemophilia (or tossing a dish full of peanuts in the face of someone with a severe peanut allergy), without knowing that this person suffers from this condition, is not a use of deadly force within the meaning of laws justifying self-defense, even if it actually ends up causing their death. Similarly, proving that you intended to and did, shoot out the tires of someone's car, or shot their foot, instead of shooting to kill, would not always constitute a use of deadly force for purposes of statutes justifying the use of force in self-defense. Getting to the specifics of the question, the majority rule would be that the use of deadly force is justified in most circumstances to prevent a home invasion burglar from harming you or other people in the residence, and to repel the home invasion burglar from the residence, although some jurisdictions would qualify this in one respect or another. The case that the use of deadly force is justified would be stronger if the home invasion burglar was armed than if he was not, and would be stronger if the homeowner was not physically competent enough to be confident of an ability to dispatch the invader in a non-deadly manner. If deadly force was justified in that circumstance, it wouldn't really matter how you killed him, nor would it matter that you intended to kill him to defense your home and the people in your home. If the law only authorized the use of non-deadly force in the circumstances, for example, because the burglar had seized an envelope full of cash and was fleeing the house, so you were really only using force to protect your property, rather than to protect your home or the safety of the people in it, at that point, then the analysis would get tougher. If you intended to kill the fleeing thief in circumstances when only non-deadly force was authorized, the weapon you used wouldn't matter. You intended to use deadly force, the force you used caused the intended death, and you did those things even though the law didn't authorize you to do so in those circumstances. If you didn't intend to kill the fleeing thief in circumstances when only non-deadly force was authorized, but you ended up killing him anyway (so that you didn't have a prohibited intent behind your actions), then the question would be whether your intent and belief that your actions would not kill him was reasonable under the circumstances. If you caused his death with your bare hands, or with a less lethal weapon (in truth, there is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon), your belief that the thief wouldn't die from your use of force would be more likely to be seen as reasonable. If you caused his death with a lethal weapon, your belief that the thief wouldn't die from your use of force would be less likely to be seen as reasonable. If the jury (or a judge in bench trial) didn't believe you were reasonable in your use of force which you didn't intend to be deadly, then the jury (or judge as the case might be) would not allow a self-defense argument to prevent them from convicting you of some kind of homicide crime. So you would probably be convicted of some form of homicide (perhaps heat of passion manslaughter), although you might still not have the requisite intent for first degree murder in circumstances like that (so that your self-defense argument might end up providing you with an incomplete defense).