|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
Justifiable(?) Homicide
There was a horrendous story in last week's issue about a guy who stabbed an intruder to death. Several readers took me to task for my tagline on the story. To refresh your memory, let's start with the story:
Weekly Weird News
Killin' Just Makes a Guy Hungry
Eugene Michael Falle, 35, was on trial for second-degree murder in Edmonton, Alta., Canada. Falle admitted he stabbed Shane Chalifoux, 18, to death after Chalifoux broke into his apartment -- and Falle stabbed him 39 times to get the job done. "I told him just hurry up and die already," he told police. "So I keep stabbin' him and stabbin' and stabbin' him and stabbin' him and stabbin' him, trying to slash his throat to get a jugular vein," he said. Chalifoux begged for his life, but Falle kept going. "He wouldn't bleed properly the way he should've bled, according to the movies." Falle finally got Chalifoux's jugular, and he died. After it was over, Falle leaned out a window and asked a neighbor to order a pizza for him. After hearing the story, the jury returned its verdict: self defense, and Falle was set free. (Edmonton Journal) ...Who knew that the O.J. jury moved to Canada?
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that True's taglines are meant to be "humorous, ironic, or thought-provoking" -- with that word "or" being the key. Sure it's great that sometimes a tagline manages to be all three, they're not definitely not always meant to be -- sometimes humor is enough, and sometimes humor is wholly inappropriate. In this case, yes: I was trying to be funny, and probably most people chuckled, but the main point was definitely to provoke people to think a bit, rather than just laugh. Several didn't quite get the point.
Ray, who didn't say where he is, complained "Sometimes you try way too hard to be funny. Maybe it's illegal to break into a person's apartment in Alberta and permissible to protect one's self and property -- as it ought to be everywhere. If you can't tell the difference between self defense (albeit somewhat exaggerated) and OJ's cold blooded murder, maybe it's a really good thing you're not in law enforcement!"
And Jay in New Jersey, a "loyal reader for at least 10 years", writes, "This is the first tagline that's inspired me to write to you. I'm not a violent person, but if someone broke into my home, and I was in a situation to defend myself, I'd be all for that. What criminal doesn't beg for forgiveness once they've been beaten? This piece of scum bit on the wrong person and got what he deserved. If the attacked had a gun and shot the attacker, this wouldn't be news...what's the difference?"
The difference is what "self defense" means, despite what the first reader seems to think. It means repelling the attack with the means necessary -- yes, up to and including shooting someone to death, as Jay notes. In fact, U.S. courts have become fairly lenient with civilians on the matter: if it's "reasonable" to be in fear for your life, police and, if necessary, prosecutors and courts, have been fine with ruling it "justified homicide" when people have been reasonable in defending themselves from attack. That does NOT mean you can chase a fleeing burglar out your front door, catch up to him, and beat him to death with a golf club, does it? That's murder: when someone is fleeing, you can't very well claim you had imminent fear for your personal safety.
Pretty obviously, the police and prosecutors in the case at hand didn't think Falle was "justified" in his homicide: they prosecuted him. It went all the way to the jury, as the story notes.
Long-time readers remember I was, in fact, a sheriff's deputy in California, so I not only have some training on the subject, but as a guy who has carried a gun I've given the matter of self-defense more thought than the average person. I have indeed thought about what I would do if someone broke into my house and I believed they were there to cause me or my family harm: I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself and them, up to and including shooting the intruder dead.
The key there is "up to and including". The point is not "Someone is in my house, therefore I'm justified in killing them," it's "is there a threat?" and, if so, "How do I nullify that threat?" If it's a neighbor who's there to borrow a cup of sugar and thought I had said "come in," I'd just as soon not put a bullet in their head. And even if it's someone with evil intent, the law doesn't say "It's fine to kill them," it says one can use reasonable force to repel the threat. "Reasonable" -- in my state -- means up to and including lethal force, as dictated by the situation. But once an intruder is subdued, "defense" is over.
So, what was the point of my tagline on the story? It was to suggest that perhaps, at some point, the threat that Chalifoux did in fact represent to Falle ended before Falle killed him. And Falle indeed meant to kill him, as his words made clear. Kill him; not repel the attack, not stop the threat, not end the danger to himself. His homicide didn't sound any too "justified" to me, and obviously it didn't to the police or prosecutors, either. The point isn't that Chalifoux "begged for forgiveness" (or mercy, or whatever), since indeed bad guys DO do that when they've been beaten. The point is that Falle got away with homicide -- just like I think O.J. Simpson did -- when there was no apparent legal or moral justification for committing it.
Even then, I'd rather the jury let him go if they truly had "reasonable doubt" that the prosecution proved their case, just as I'd much rather a guilty O.J. be set free rather than an innocent O.J. be thrown in prison. But it's still fair to raise an eyebrow when the "Court of Public Opinion" is left feeling an injustice was done.
I'm interested in your thoughts: you don't have to register to post your comments below.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Neil, UK on May 22, 2009:
It frightens me that many people posting here don't seem to draw a distinction between "I believe that people guilty of home invasion should have no rights" (an example of free speech) and "I believe that people guilty of home invasion do have no rights" (advocating disregard for the law).
Incidentally, I used the word "trespassed" in an earlier post. While I admit that I was swayed by stories of people being shot for happening to be on others' land, I actually meant trespass in the more general sense of wrongdoing. If people claim that committing any particular crime renders one liable to indiscriminate force, it isn't hard to imagine individuals being framed for whatever that crime might be after they've been killed for unrelated reasons....
Posted by ken in BC, Canada on May 22, 2009:
Neil's comment may well represent others on this page. I'm not sure I fall into a category of slipping from one to another or have slipped unwarily into an unintended position in an argument.
I do know that parsing the language, English being so many other languages thrown into the mix, make for an interesting time. Presently my mind is virtually in a fog after listening to hours of cross examination by a Committee lawyer questioning a former Prime Minister of this country, a Ronnie Reagan, Irish eyes are smiling songbird. Boy, can that guy muddy the waters of mystification. Six days on the stand and despite top level inquisitors, he believes he came out on top.
Probably still unknown to him, he's next to the only one who thinks he's 'walking tall' when he's looking into a mirror.
Still, I like the way Neil parsed his message to the unwary.
Posted by Bob, New Jersey on September 28, 2009:
I went through several positions as I read this item and its 77 (to date) comments.
First as I read the original posting I agreed that this was more than self defense.
Then as some commenters added some additional details (prior contacts with the deceased, potential of gang initiation, 2 additional gang members waiting outside etc) I started to think that maybe this was justifiable.
Finally, as commenters started to focus on things like this persons' mental state to say (and repeat) things like "die already" I started to think that while this may, in part, be justifiable, that the mental state being shown was definitely not one of a sane person. If indeed this was a quarrel between two drug users sanity and sobriety become an issue.
Reasonable force for self defense means that you stop when the invader is no longer a threat. 99 times out of a hundred, that's when he drops and is no longer able to act offensively.
I do wonder if this is the 100'th case as there was no mention of what the previous quarrels scope was and what the police and courts had done in those cases. If Falle had seen Chalifoux skate on the prior offenses and thought that letting him live through this one would only see him return even angrier the next time, I can see not stopping until he was dead as being self defense. I am reaching here and do not have the benefit of all the evidence that the jury had.
Absent the unfortunate comments, I can see in the heat of the fight that deciding when to stop stabbing might be tougher than standing back 10 feet and deciding that since the other guy had hit the floor that additional shots were unnecessary. With the comments, there seemed to be some thought going on and continuing the attack seems excessive. That leads me back to the idea that this guy might fear, based on history, that this would continue if he did not finish it then and there.
Regardless, the jury has spoken. I just hope that Falle can get some mental help as (IMO) he has demonstrated that he needs it!