3 ms·

That brings up a question. If someone were within their rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if they used it intentionally?

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  Whether they were within their rights would only come into play if they had the requisite mental state (intent, recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first place.
  • LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Interesting. That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > That means that in some cases you have to argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted No, you don't. It's just if you are charged with an offense that requires intent, the question of self-defense (or any other excuse) is moot if the prosecutor can't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place. If you are charged with an offense that doesn't require intent, like involuntary manslaughter, you don't have to argue intent to kill to use self-defense as an excuse. And even of you are charged with an intent crime, you don't need to grant intent to argue self-defense.