OCR Text |
Show POPULAR TALKS ON LAW. f Copyrighted by William C. Sprague. IV,i,i,,;r x Kprague Correspondence School of Self-Defence. It is a matter of importance that how far he mav go in using force a-'ain- '. the defence, of himself, hi family un.l hi- t .. Pv The right of self-defence will occur to u- :, . I , ; natural right. One could scarcely le cxpc.-t.-.i -.'nr., attacked, either iu person or in pro port;. . i.. ..j J will waif for the law to puni.-h the aurc-: ," t-the t-the one attacked has no mean of kuowiiii- ; ,-r ( the attacking party may go in the u.-e ..f n,. as he even may go to the extent of takiim ii Then, too. the law recognix.es a weaknf-- j,.,. man nature or shall we call it strength r-,, . ,j, impels one when attacked to defend him ', ,, use of force. Self-preservation is truly the law of nature. The law of self-defence is an old one. ,;. :,;r, from the beginning. It extends not only . own person but. one's own family and p. The old law speaks of a man's home a liU ' 'm.'V and gave him the right to defend it. ev. -., Uia extent of taking life; with certain lunita-i,,!;.; which we will learn, that right still cxi?N. Of course there must be a limitation pit .:;i.n the right of self-defence or it will he ahu-. d. ,,iid men, under cover of the excuse that, they vrp. pu-to pu-to an act of violence by necessity, will eoTor up a-?s which are unjustifiable and hence punishable. Th,, law, broadly speaking, limits the right to en;, , where necessity exists, and it will only excuse man when" he uses that violence which, under the . i;-i-tin-stances, would appeal to a reasonable man as prvM. sary for his self -protection. Xor will a comr compel com-pel him to exercise the best of judgment at the rim.' for it recognizes that when the occasion for self-defence self-defence presents itself, the mind of the one r, . tacked is more or less disturbed and the even h:d- ance of his judgment shaken; but where the nieam taken to defend one's self are manifestly more tiuiu necessary, as where on slapped in the face draws ,i revolver and kills, the act will be considered un justifiable and the perpetrator of it held to account ; but if the person attacked has reasonable grounds for fearing that killing or a felony is being attempted at-tempted by the attacking party, the defence may g. to the extent of taking life. It is well decided that where one is merely struck with the fist and has n reasonable grounds for believing that he is in dan- y ger of being killed or of a felony being committed, his use of a gun, or a knife, or deadly weapon is unjustifiable. un-justifiable. The fact that the person defending himself va mistaken as to the intention of his assailant dor not affect his right 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 wouLf be perpetrated against him. It has been held than the mere fact that the assailant put his hand in hi pocket was not sufficient to justify the taking of the assailant's life on the ground that the assailant; was believed to be reaching for a weapon. Suppose that the person called upon to defend himself had been himself the provoker of the quarrel quar-rel or the immediate cause of the attack, would hiss subsequent use of violent means in self-deefnce b? justified under the rules laid down? The question has arisen in many cases and has usually becti decided in the negative. The person himself must be free from fault in order to justify himself for killing another. The cases go to the extent of saving that anvonf who brings on or provokes a personal encounter cannot rely upon the plea of self-defence. Wc can quickly sec that if the law were permitted to he otherwise one'elesiring to kill another would only i have to provoke that other sufficiently to cause him .! ' to use violence in order to take his life and escape t the consequences. The main question as to whether or not the force used could have reasonably been deemed necessary is a emestion to be left to tho determination of the jury in all cases. It is also of interest to ask whether a man attacked at-tacked is bound to retreat. It is quite well decided that when a man is attacked with a dangerous weapon he must retreat as far as he can safely d . so before, using like means in defending himself: but where t lie cue attacked has reasonable grounds for believing that he cannot afely retreat he is justified in using violence in self-defence. The right of self-defence goes to the extent of excuimr a man for resisting arrest by violence where at attempted at-tempted arrest is unlawful. How far one may go in the defence o his property, prop-erty, or possessions, is reserved for treatment' in a subsequent article. (To be Continued.) |