Terminlogy: lack of cause due to context IANAL and choose this very basic, if not obvious, example to setup the question. Bob is tried for shooting a person. Bob pleads innocence in the form of self defense: the other person drew his pistol and pointed it at Bob. The findings of fact reveal: Bob was an armed bank-robber at the time of the shooting Security video show the security guard drew his service revolver and Bob fired: striking the guard Is there a concise legal phrase or word that communicates the notion that because of Bob's action (robbing a bank), Bob is unable to invoke self-defense? Possibly: Bob lacks / forfeited standing to invoke self-defense?
The terminology used may vary some by jurisdiction, but in many it will be said that Bob provoked the confrontation, or that Bob was the aggressor, or that Bob was engaged in a felony and so cannot claim self-defense. This fact patter is highly unlikely to arise in real lie, because if Bob has even a half-competent lawyer, the issue of self-defense, sure to fail, will not be raised. Doing so only wastes the court's time, and may well make them think worse of Bob, which may cost him. In less open-and-shut cases, the general rule is that one who provokes a confrontation, or who is the aggressor, may not claim self-defense. But the exact rule varies by jurisdiction, and the line will be drawn in different ways in different jurisdictions. In some one who seeks a confrontation may be denied a right of self-defense.
colorado In the U.S., this is largely a question of state law and while similar from state to state, it is not identical. In Colorado, which basically follows the majority rule, there are a couple of justifications that could be available: (1) the use of force justified for defense of property, and (2) the use of force justified for a citizen's arrest. In the case of defense of property, the rule is as follows: Use of physical force in defense of property A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704. Colo. Rev. Statutes § 18-1-706. In the case of a citizen's arrest, the rule is: A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-707(7). Can the victim shoot the pickpocket and claim heat of passion as a defense? No. Deadly force is not authorized against a pickpocket, and shooting someone almost always counts (often by definition) as a use of deadly force. The &quot;heat of passion&quot; defense only downgrades a murder charge to manslaughter and probably wouldn't apply in any case in these circumstances. Can the victim grab, tackle, or punch the pickpocket? Can the victim say, &quot;Give back my wallet or I will punch you&quot;? Does the answer vary depending on which of the two people would be at an advantage in a physical confrontation, based on size, age or gender? The law doesn't answer these question at this level of specificity. Whether the force used was &quot;reasonable and appropriate&quot; and was &quot;reasonably believed to be necessary&quot; are determined after the fact on a case by case basis by the finder of fact (i.e. the judge in a bench trial, or the jury in a jury trial).
Self-defence has nothing to do with whether you are performing an arrest (lawful or otherwise) Self-defence is a plea that you used reasonable force to protect yourself, others and in some jurisdictions, property, from immediate harm. There is, as you say, a “whole spectrum” of both the perception of the threat and the force used that go into determining if the actions of the defendant amounted to self-defence or not. That’s why it’s up to the jury to decide on a case by case basis. A person who has the power of arrest (law enforcement officers and citizens who actually witness a crime) is authorised to use reasonable force to effect that arrest. Of course, effecting an arrest may cause a situation to escalate to the point where self-defence becomes an issue.
The common law adversarial system is just that: the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense is not obliged to call evidence at all. They are allowed to though: they will do it merely if they feel that the prosecution evidence needs rebuttal — in order to discredit the evidence or, at least, raise that &quot;reasonable doubt&quot;.
You've got four cases there with four different reasons for substantial delays: In the case of the Aurora theater shooting, the shooter pled not guilty by reason of insanity. There's no doubt about who did it, but doubt was raised about the mental status of the shooter. Murder is not a strict liability crime, so the ability of the defendant to form the intent to commit the crime is relevant. In the case of the Charleston church shooting, the defendant was twice evaluated for competence to stand trial. Again, no doubt about who did it, but most if not all jurisdictions require a defendant to be sufficiently sane to participate in their defense. In the case of the Parkland shooting, the initial delay was confusion over who the defense lawyer would be. Florida will only provide a public defender to someone who cannot afford their own defense lawyer, and it took nearly a year to determine that the defendant had inherited enough money to afford a private lawyer. Due to this delay, the trial was initially scheduled for mid-2020, which caused it to be delayed by the COVID-19 outbreak. In the case of the Tree of Life shooting, it appears to be straight-up delaying tactics by the defense. There are a great many motions, appeals of motions, requests for delay, and other things a lawyer can do to slow things down. Since the defendant is currently being held without bail, the prosecution probably isn't strongly motivated to speed things up.
The crime of theft generally requires two elements - taking control of property, and the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. If Bob had no intent to leave without paying, he may lack the intent often required for theft. In the scenario described, it's possible Bob has not committed theft, but his actions may indeed constitute theft depending on the jurisdiction. As pointed out in the comments, some jurisdictions codify the concealment of merchandise as prima facie presumption of an intention to steal, or may even codify the act of concealment itself as a crime. There are some shoplifting laws statues that specifically call out &quot;willful concealment&quot;, which does not require leaving the premises of a store to have committed a crime - merely concealing the item may be a crime in itself, although perhaps not the crime of &quot;theft&quot;. Whether a court would find Bob guilty of theft will depend on a number of factors, depending if there is leeway in inferring intent, and how that intent is inferred. If Bob's actions are found to be sufficiently inconsistent with the behavior of someone who truly intended to pay, the court may find him guilty. If a reasonable person would infer a lack of intent to pay from Bob's actions, he may be found guilty.
I'm no expert, but I had assumed this clause was present in case of the following situation. Joe is arrested for a robbery of a London bank. Joe says nothing under questioning. At trial, Joe's defense is that at the time of the robbery, he was in Sheffield drinking beer with his brother. On the basis of common sense, a jury could think: "Surely if Joe were really innocent, he would have told the police of his alibi at the time he was questioned, and saved himself a lot of trouble. Since he didn't do that, maybe a more likely explanation is that he wasn't actually in Sheffield, but that sometime between arrest and trial, he came up with the idea of faking an alibi in Sheffield, and convinced people to testify falsely to that effect. Yes, that does seem more plausible. So we are not going to give much credence to Joe's supposed alibi." So it really would be the case that not mentioning the alibi during questioning would harm Joe's defense at trial. The warning, then, is intended to keep Joe from doing this inadvertently. If Joe's alibi is genuine, but out of a misguided desire to exercise his right to remain silent, he doesn't mention it during questioning, he may accidentally increase his chances of being wrongly convicted. Everybody has an interest in avoiding this.
Deliberately causing an accident is illegal. However, in some (probably many) jurisdictions there is a &quot;necessity&quot; defense against criminal charges. In Washington it goes like this: Necessity is a defense to a charge of (fill in crime) if (1) the defendant reasonably believed the commission of the crime was necessary to avoid or minimize a harm; (2) harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm resulting from a violation of the law; (3) the threatened harm was not brought about by the defendant; and (4) no reasonable legal alternative existed. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that it is more probably true than not true. If you find that the defendant has established this defense, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty [as to this charge]. It is possible, if B is attempting to kill the pedestrian, that you have defense of others available as well.