If a person tells you that they have HIV while they are trying to bite you a lethal threat?
The standard is a five part test, according to self defense attorney Andrew Branca:
- The person claiming self defense (you) must be innocent (didn't start the fight)
- You must have tried to avoid the fight
- The lethal threat must be imminent
- Your use of force must be proportional
I really don't want to turn this into a discussion about the first four points. The one I want to focus on is the point that makes this situation unique: the last one. If a person is attempting to bite you while claiming to have a deadly disease presenting a lethal threat? Would using lethal force against such a person be proportional? In other words, if a person is threatening to give you AIDS by biting you, would shooting them be legally defensible?
What say ye?
3 comments:
That proportional shit needs to end.
The response to this crap should be disproportionate.
But, it's what jurisprudence has given us...
Threat of death should yield death.
HIV isn't a death threat, but grievous bodily injury is also valid for a self defense claim and an HIV infection is surely that. A bite can transmit the virus, so... BANG.
I would disagree that proportionality is a bad thing. A child kicking you should not be cause for deadly force.
Divemedic, a child kicking you isn't in the same class as threatening to transfer a deadly disease.
Now, say you have hemophilia, and some crumb-cruncher is kicking you after you tell the porch-monkey to back up. Whack the kid? Heck yeah.
Sorry. When attacked and it's life threatening, the answer is force, overwhelming force in order to protect you and yours.
It's not nice, but neither is living through the treatment regime for HIV/AIDS, for HepC, and there's no chance of curing those two thingamabobs.
Post a Comment