At U.S. Law Shield’s Stay Legal Seminars, we often discuss how justification is an affirmative defense. In the context of a justified shooting, your affirmative defense is your legal excuse. With an affirmative defense, “the defendant admits his commission of the act charged, but seeks to justify or excuse it.” Commonwealth v. White, 342 Pa. Super. 1, 7 (1985) quoting Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 387 (1974).
In other words, the defendant says: “Yes, I’ve done something that is typically a crime, BUT the law recognizes this reason why I did it.”
You are not saying: “It wasn’t me” or “I didn’t do it.” You’re not even saying “I didn’t mean to do it.” And you are certainly not saying “It was an accident.”
You’re saying: “Yes, I did it. BUT I have a legal excuse.”
We discussed the example of Theodore Wafer in our previous post, JUSTIFIED: Does Pennsylvania Law Allow for Use of Force in Self-Defense? Wafer’s case is a prime example of how people can quickly flush their legal excuse down the drain.
A local news story reminded us of this absolutely vital concept. In this case, the lawyer argued that her client did not kill the victim, but if her client did kill the victim, it was in self-defense. Similar to our discussion in Justified, and similar to the illustration in the Wafer case, “I did it on purpose, but there’s a legally recognized reason why I did it” doesn’t mix so well with “I didn’t do it at all.”
According to the article, Judge Kelley responded to the argument “He didn’t do the killing, or alternatively, if he did, he did it in self-defense . . . . You realize they are mutually exclusive . . . ?”
Unfortunately, we can’t have it both ways.
In order to abide by the law, you have to know the law and understand the law. Similarly, in order to adequately protect your rights, you have to know the law and understand the law. So, remember, don’t give away that legal excuse. And most of all, LAWYER UP AND SHUT UP!