The confusion rested on the difference between :
A) a finding of having acted in self-defense
B) a finding of self-defense
Point A) refers only to intent… i.e. the accused genuinely and honestly held the belief his life was being threatened.
Point B) refers to both intent and conduct… i.e. the accused genuinely and honestly held the belief his life was being threatened and he acted within the legal bounds of self-defense.
… I can fully appreciate how this subtle but crucial distinction was the source of our disagreement… and I can see how I may have been responsible for not being clear about what I meant.
For me at least, self-defense which is deemed unreasonable can no longer be referred to as self-defense… the same reasoning would apply to reasonable murder : it could no longer be referred to as murder.
No matter… the issue has been successfully resolved.
Bit in red… no worries… no harm done… it's all good
Do share your HOA findings !!
AJ, I do this with full respect. But now we are back to disagreeing - with respect, you misunderstand the point/nature of our disagreement. Its much more fundamental than you believe I think.
You distinguish between A1) a claim to self-defence, e.g. where there was in fact an intruder and B) in fact self-defence. I fully understand what you mean here. I agree that only B1) should properly be called self-defence.
There is a corollary: A2) a claim to putative self defence, e.g. where there was in fact a perceived intruder and B) in fact putative self-defence. I fully understand what you mean here. I agree that only B2) should properly be called putative self-defence.
However you misunderstand the point. The point is this: in B2) one can still be negligent and found guilty of culpable homicide. This is the point me, the judges, the professors, some other sleuthers etc are making about putative self defence. Putative self defence is a subjective entity and does not exclude culpable homicide which is an objective entity. Private defence is not analogous in this respect - private defence is an objective entity and it excludes culpable homicide, by virtue of being a lawful killing.
Rough example relating to self-defence:
There was in fact an intruder, but in fact the intruder was not attacking or imminently attacking: A1
There was in fact an intruder, and in fact the intruder was attacking and all other requirements for self-defence were in fact satisifed: B1
Rough example relating to putative self-defence:
There was in fact a believed intruder, but in fact there was not a believed attack or believed imminent attack: A2
There was in fact a believed intruder, and in fact a believed attack and all other requirements for self-defence were believed to have been satisfied: B2
In B above one has in fact acted in putative self defence. It is not claimed putative self defence, it is 'proper' putative self defence. Where self-defence has objective requirements z, y, z, putative self defence has subjective requirements x, y z - did one believe x, y, z to be satisfied.
In B above, one can still be objectively unreasonable in his mistake. Eg if a reasonable person would not have believed there was an intruder, e.g. if a reasonable person would not have believed they were under attack. Therefore it is possible for one to have in fact acted in putative private defence and also be negligent.
I just want you to understand the point that's all. I'm no longer particularly interested in convincing you, heh
