Let’s go through the events here - the ‘victim’ (Cassius) had just spent the last few minutes cutting the ‘murderer’s’ chest open & was just about to kill him when he was interrupted by a 3rd party (Butters). The victim then breaks the 3rd party’s nose & tries to kill him with the same knife. The murderer’s dog is able to intervene & kill the ‘victim’ while protecting its master.
As you admit, that's not what happened. If Mouse had immediately killed Cassius when Mouse got his jaws on Cassius's neck, that would be different because 1) Harry was not involved, 2) it was done to stop an imminent threat, and 3) there was no deliberation.
[1.] There is no way to prove that Cassius wouldn’t have been able to get back to up & finish what he’d started - perhaps he would’ve been able to get the drop on Mouse (unlikely) or [2.] perhaps he would re-attempt this at a later date, given that’s exactly what Cassius was doing here (after the events of DM).
1. That's not the standard. Self defense requires not that the prosecutor prove there was no imminent threat, but for Harry to prove that there was one. I disagree with this ancient burden because "unlawful" is an element, so I believe the state has the burden of proving it, but judges for hundreds of years disagree. 2. Self defense requires there to be an imminent threat. Once the immediacy of the threat stops, the legal defense of self defense ceases to apply. Re-attempting at a later date is insufficient.
We only know that Harry gave the order to Mouse to kill Cassius because he expressly tells us so, why would he do this in a hypothetical court of law where he is being ‘accused’ of murder?
We don't need a jury to determine the facts so that we can conduct a legal analysis because we have the facts. The jury's only job is to determine the disputed facts of a case. Cf. jury nullification, sentencing. I've previously stated Harry could lie his way out of this one if he was charged.
[1.] All of Harry’s ‘murders’ would probably count as justifiable homicides ([2.] especially if he could get a Sidhe lawyer) - [3.] including that of Corpsetaker in DB. [4.] Like Harry tells Sarissa in CD, the only 2 people he’s killed in cold blood were Susan & Lloyd Slate. [5.] Given that Susan’s body likely vanished after the Ramps were exterminated as a species, I doubt any mortal authority would be able to prove anything there (no body, almost impossible to prove the crime) & [6.] Lloyd Slate was murdered in the NN - well out of any mortal police’s jurisdiction & in full compliance/ being forced to do it by the ruler of that nation (Mab).
1. If they are justifiable homicides, then they aren't murders. 2. If he gets away with murder, it doesn't mean he didn't commit murder. 3. I'd say that's self-defense/defense of others, but it would depend on the judge. 4. In
Proven Guilty, Harry states "I murdered them. I've never killed, man...not like that. Cold." 5. Lea buries Susan's body, and it's arguable whether or not she is a human being at the time. Also, I don't know anything about homicide in civil law countries, much less Mexico specifically. 6. As I've previously stated, that depends entirely upon the U.S. governments determination of whether or not Winter is a "nation." The U.S. has extra-territorial jurisdiction.
[1.] So I really don’t agree with the assessments of Harry being a ‘murderer’ according to American law. [2.] The legal definition of murder is just that, a legal definition - extenuating circumstances are always considered in such cases.
1. His actions meet all the elements of the crime and don't meet any defense, so Harry is a murderer according to American law. 2. When we're talking about whether or not a crime occurred, it's the legal definitions that matter. When we're talking about whether or not to charge someone, pardon them, or sentencing, extenuating circumstances are
sometimes considered.
People have been convicted on much less than what we have on Harry. That is, in clearer cases of self defense. In Texas, a father was brought before a grand jury when he killed a man he found raping his daughter. (Paywall)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=274F1345C58C43E4518B5C9748AEE0AA&gwt=pay (paywall). I have no idea why he was brought before a grand jury, but sometimes prosecutors are really just out to get someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if more people are wrongly convicted of murder because a court didn't find self defense/defense of others when it should have than when the authorities just convicted the "wrong guy."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
That article's description of self defense is wrong. It's grossly under inclusive. The self defense page is better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States). It's "Retreat" section is technically wrong on a few counts. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions had adopted the majority rule of no duty to retreat well before "Stand Your Ground" laws ever showed up. The first adoption of the majority rule was by a court in New York, and not a legislature. I think it was in the Colonial period, but don't recall. It was definitely before anyone you've ever known was born.
