SELF- DEFENSE SAAD ALAIYADHI

FIRST RLS

SECOND RLS

KNOWLEDGE ISSUE To what extent can killing someone for self defense be justified?

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”

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-ETHICS UTALITARIASIM

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