A 19-year-old woman was raped by two men. She subsequently invited them for a return date, at which time she killed one with a shotgun, while the other man fled.
The use of force would not be allowed in this case. She used excessive force and I believe it to be premeditated murder. This woman should not have been a vigilante and her actions were vigilante justice. She committed murder, no question in my mind. Her actions were premeditated as she called them men back to her home after they had already left. The fact that she was raped by the two men is a tragedy and should not have happened. However, she should have reported it to the police. She obviously had the two men’s information since she was able to call them back to her house. If she had acted while the crime of rape was being committed than she could use the defense of self defense, but she didn’t. She knowingly and willingly called them back to her home and shot one man while the other fled. I think it is pretty odd that two rapists would not be suspicious of the woman they raped calling them back to her home. I wonder what they thought she wanted. I wonder if the jury and judge will take her mitigating circumstances under consideration. While I think she was definitely wrong in her actions I wonder if there will be some compassion shown to her due to her circumstances.
B. A 62-year-old retired army officer was awakened by noise in his home. He got up, and armed with a pistol, walked into a hallway where he saw two men coming toward him. He fired his pistol, killing both men, who were in the act of burglary.
In this case the self defense use of force was justified. These two men entered his home and were trespassing. They could have been armed. I believe the 62-year-old retired Army veteran acted as if his life was at stake and it very well could have been. He defended his home and his right to be protected in his home. I believe the Castle Doctrine would come into play in this case. The occupant must have thought the intruders were going to commit bodily harm. Also, the intruders most likely already committed a felony. He did not provoke the intruders at all, instead he protected his own well-being. Here in California we have a “softer” Castle Doctrine. California “allow citizens to protect their homes with deadly force if they feel that they or another person are in physical danger, but does not extend to theft, and it only protects residents in their home, and not in cars or at work”. (2)
Quick Reply
