SELF-DEFENSESAAD ALAIYADHI

FIRST RLS

SECOND RLS

KNOWLEDGE ISSUE

To what extent can killing someone for self defense be

justified?

WOK

WOK-LANGUAGE

Definition“In CRIMINAL LAW, an affirmative defense (e.g., to a murder charge)

alleging that the defendant used serious force necessarily for self-protection. The claim of self-defense must normally rely on a reasonable

belief that the other party intended to inflict great bodily harm or death and that avoidance by retreating was impossible.” (merriam-webster)

CRITERIA FOR KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE

1. The Victim must have had the intentions to defend him self

2. The victim must have had a reason to be threatened

3. The victim must believe that the threatened harm was imminent.

4. The victim must believe that the threatened harm matches the required level of force the victim used

RLS1 VS. CRITERIA The Victim must have had the intentions to defend him/her

self

The victim must have had a reason to be threatened

The victim must believe that the threatened harm was imminent.

The victim must believe that the threatened harm matches the required level of force the victim used

RLS2 VS. CRITERIA The Victim must have had the intentions to defend him/her

self

The victim must have had a reason to be threatened

The victim must believe that the threatened harm was imminent.

☓ The victim must believe that the threatened harm matches the required level of force the victim used

WOK-EMOTION

“FIGHT OR FLIGHT”

PERSPECTIVES

VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE

This comes back to the fight or flight response, when the victim is being threatened they feel fear and according to the “fight or flight”

response the victim would either run away or fight, and when a person does decide to fight he uses “self defense” as an excuse to harm the

person threatening him.

CRIMINALS PERSPECTIVE

• The criminal in this case is any person that starts a threat.

• Sometimes the criminals intentions weren’t to assault the victim, and in some other cases it is there intention. Also

when a person murders a criminal in self-defense, usually the murderer never expects it.

JUDGES PERSPECTIVE• First, the defendant must prove that he reasonably believed

that his act was necessary to defend himself. • threatened with physical harm.• the threatened harm was imminent.• the threatened harm was unlawful.• the level of force that the defendant used.

MY OWN PERSPECTIVE• There is no need for murder unless the victim had a very

good reason for it:

• For example: if a victim was stabbed in the shoulder and the criminal was about to stab again, but the victim took an object and stabbed the criminal first and killed him.

• If this was the case then its ethical to murder for self-defense

AOK

AOK-ETHICS

UTALITARIASIM

CONCLUSION

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN KILLING SOMEONE FOR SELF DEFENSE BE JUSTIFIED?

ANSWER

• Murder because of Self Defense is justified when the case matches the criteria I stated before

LIMITATIONS • I never had actual experience with using “self-defense” as

an excuse for murder or even murder to start with• The information that I got was only from second hand

resources• And when I brought the judges perspective I got my

information from an American based college which might make my statement bias

THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDIVEDED ATTENTION

A