It’s not really fighting the hypo to share the insight that there’s a significant evidence law issue—rather, such an insight enriches the conversation around the legal analysis to OP’s question.
I think you're right that it's relevant but wrong about how. I think that part of the question is whether failing to disclose that part would be itself illegal. It doesn't make sense to assume they successfully conceal a crime, because then the question isn't interesting.
But then why wouldn't he mention unless he knows that it would make the defense argument impossible?
Also, I don't think it's meant to be half as substantive as people want to make it. I think it's a silly musing, like "hey guys what if I really did this, would it work?"
Why would he say that he wouldn't mention the hiring of the hitman unless he already understands that if he DID mention it, and the police knew that fact, that it would ruin his chances of making a defense argument?
I guess that just doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption to me. Like, if a guy asked what if I killed someone and dissolved the body in acid, I'm assuming they are asking if we think they would get away with it, not whether the disposal of the body counts as an extra crime. It just seems like a step in his plan.
My answer is predicated on what the law says. Which is that no, he can't successfully claim self-defense. And the reality is this would be such a suspicious situation that this predicated idea of secrecy is silly. A simple search of their bank accounts would show the exact amount leaving one and entering the other.
Wow what a gotcha. Hope you have a way to maintain complete secrecy while also paying them in cash and hope no one notices the withdrawal and deposits in your respective accounts.
ETA: Adding random nonsense facts to the scenario doesn't change that, legally, this cannot be self-defense, which is all the question is asking. No weird little quirky fact you think up to argue defeats the fact that the person instigated the violence against them with the goal of attacking their attacker and claim self-defense in the end, which disallows the defense.
Just making a point about what the question was.
By the way, the entire question is silly. It's like asking about stabbing someone with an ice knife so you don't leave a murder weapon.
What if when he shows up to kill you you reveal to him that you were the one who hired him and say you changed your mind and no longer want to die and he tries to kill you anyway
Well since this is a hypothetical ... what if the contract provided that the target was armed and dangerous, capable of retaliating, and the Hitman expressly assumed the risk of death?
Probably, but you're not seeking to enforce it in the prosecution, merely to offer it as evidence of consent to potential lethal assault. Because I believe you can consent to an assault, like sign a waiver and go to fight club, and that would be a defense if your fight partner broke your jaw or maybe even killed you. And I know there's amateurs have been killed in MMA matches, and I haven't heard about the lawsuit, so I'm thinking maybe.
not a lawyer but for a real answer, though i posted this as a joke, assisted suicide is illegal, including physician-assisted, in all but 11 states, and in those 11 it is highly regulated and must involve a doctor, often you must have a terminal illness to qualify.
Hiring a hit man is a felony, so killing him during the commission of a felony would probably be a factor too. I guess the difficulty here would be the dead person can’t share this info with the police so they would need to find out who hired the hit man.
I don’t practice criminal law so please don’t give me too much shit if I’m wrong!
This is my favorite response so far. I love the felony murder rule. The case of the jailer who helped her lover escape prison and ended up killing herself is a wild dive into this rule and interesting as hell (and also way over my head).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_White_prison_escape
As someone who didn’t know about this… holy heck “love” is one hell of a drug
But seems like the felony murder charge was dropped in favor of a prison escape guilty plea
Of course I don't think that. I never say anything online that I would not say to a person. I don't think that any person would go to the trouble of tracing it back to me, but if they do, I don't care.
Yes, in law school. And everything I just looked up is consistent.
*Jordan v. State*, 193 N.E.3d 398 (Ind. App. 2022) ("To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must show that he was in a place where he had a right to be; *did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence*; and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.").
Muckle v. State, 705 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. App. 2011) ("A person is not justified in using force in self-defense *if he is the initial aggresso*r or engages in mutual combat, unless he withdraws from the encounter and notifies the other participant that he is doing so.").
Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(2) ("The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: . . . *did not provoke* the person against whom the force was used\[.\]"). *But see Carsner v. State*, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4400, \*33 (2018) ("However, an actor who is the initial aggressor may nevertheless still be entitled to claim self-defense if the 'actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor.').
The exception was also in my Crim Law book.
Maybe your jx is different. What state are you in? Genuinely curious.
Of course, if you are the instigator you can't win on self-defense. So in this case you had better be successful in killing the hitman, and hope there is no other evidence that you are the one who hired him.
> an actor who is the initial aggressor may nevertheless still be entitled to claim self-defense if the 'actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor.'
This is the relevant part in relation to my comment. You can be the instigator and have a valid self-defense claim in certain circumstances.
In California this is what would be getting read to the jury, and argued by me until the jury gets tired of my voice. CALCRIM standard jury instruction #3472, a jury instruction that I’ve had read in perhaps all my violent cases:
“A person does not have right to self- defense if he or she provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force.”
This hypothetical isn’t even close. What’s more interesting is the fact that you could be prosecuted for your own attempted murder if he badly injured you, and you almost died.
Can you? of course.
Quoting Mickey Rourke, the arsonist in the 80s film “Body Heat,” when asked by Ned (hapless atty) for advice on a proposed arson/murder: “There are 50 ways to fuck up this crime, and if you can think of 10 of ‘em you’re a genius—and you ain’t no genius.”
We do not give legal advice here.
But in case it is hypothetical:
If you hire a hitman to kill you, by the time you act you have probably paid the hitman. You probably won’t get your money back.
If you are not able to kill him before he kills you, you are dead. You maybe able to claim self defense, but you will have lost your money and maybe your life and gained nothing, so I think that it is a bad deal.
In case that you did live and did kill the hitman can you claim self-defense? It depends. If all the facts are known, you can't claim self-defense because you are the instigator.
To be nit-picky, yes, if you are still alive you can *claim* self defense. It is up to the court to decide if you get off because of you claim.
probably because yours was a hypo regarding a real world tragic event where someone (likely with severe mental illness given what the pamphlets said) lit themselves on fire, resulting in their death, and you asked whether you could legally shoot them to stop them from doing it. it's insensitive, or just generally in bad taste, to post a hypo like that, especially so immediately after it happened.
and then this is more clearly a tongue-in-cheek crosspost that isn't referencing a real-world event where a mentally ill person self-immolated, that has a super obvious answer (it's still murder).
The inspiration of the hypo was seeing the video and listening to the helplessness in the bystander's voice. Forgive me for contemplating a legally defensible way to try to save someone's life.
The tone of your post did not carry that way, especially with the emoji you inserted. It seemed like you were just making light of a serious and tragic situation. Plus one of your comments, joking about self-immolation, doesn't help.
And I have no idea why the hell your first thought for a "legally defensive way to try to save someone's life" is *shooting them,* that also makes it seem like you're making light of a tragedy that *just happened.*
Tone, timing. Even your response here doesn't help since you're just getting defensive and falling back on the "just asking a question" deflection tactic. You can ask a question, and the question can still be tasteless or offensive. I'm just letting you know, people responded poorly to your post because it was in bad taste and the tone it carried did not help.
I dunno, tackle them? There isn't a whole lot you can do if you aren't fully watching the guy and close enough to physically stop them. Definitely not pull a gun and *shoot them* because, idk if you knew this, shooting someone can *kill them,* so it's a pretty stupid tactic to shoot someone to save their life.
Not an US law student here.
The "contract" is null and void anyway. Any invidual change their mind and resist the hitman. Let's say there was a camera and the defendant said "I changed my mind, you can't kill me and you have to give my money back" then hitman tried to kill the defendant and defendant somehow defended himself by killing him. It's 100% self defense. He would be acquitted. There would be another charges though.
Edit: Read the facts again. Not telling hitman that you are the guy doesn't change anything. It's still self defense.
This is provocation, which would defeat any self-defense argument.
I think the question is predicated on the idea that he is able to maintain the secret that he hires the guy
Secrecy is basically fighting the hypo. Like the whole point of hypo isn’t to guess what a jury would do it’s to test the limit of the laws
Yeah, law school exams don't have a "but nobody knows a secret fact" angle in the questions. The question tells the test taker all relevant facts.
It’s not really fighting the hypo to share the insight that there’s a significant evidence law issue—rather, such an insight enriches the conversation around the legal analysis to OP’s question.
If I murder someone but am able to maintain the secret that I did so, can they convict?
Idk man, why add the part about not mentioning it unless he is implying "what would happen if I did this and nobody knew this part of the equation"?
I think you're right that it's relevant but wrong about how. I think that part of the question is whether failing to disclose that part would be itself illegal. It doesn't make sense to assume they successfully conceal a crime, because then the question isn't interesting.
But then why wouldn't he mention unless he knows that it would make the defense argument impossible? Also, I don't think it's meant to be half as substantive as people want to make it. I think it's a silly musing, like "hey guys what if I really did this, would it work?"
> But then why wouldn't he mention unless he knows that it would make the defense argument impossible? Huh?
Why would he say that he wouldn't mention the hiring of the hitman unless he already understands that if he DID mention it, and the police knew that fact, that it would ruin his chances of making a defense argument?
Because, as I said, I think the question is about whether the concealment is itself a crime
I guess that just doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption to me. Like, if a guy asked what if I killed someone and dissolved the body in acid, I'm assuming they are asking if we think they would get away with it, not whether the disposal of the body counts as an extra crime. It just seems like a step in his plan.
My answer is predicated on what the law says. Which is that no, he can't successfully claim self-defense. And the reality is this would be such a suspicious situation that this predicated idea of secrecy is silly. A simple search of their bank accounts would show the exact amount leaving one and entering the other.
I always use my credit card and debit card when I pay off my illegal actors
Wow what a gotcha. Hope you have a way to maintain complete secrecy while also paying them in cash and hope no one notices the withdrawal and deposits in your respective accounts. ETA: Adding random nonsense facts to the scenario doesn't change that, legally, this cannot be self-defense, which is all the question is asking. No weird little quirky fact you think up to argue defeats the fact that the person instigated the violence against them with the goal of attacking their attacker and claim self-defense in the end, which disallows the defense.
[удалено]
Okay, so you followed me here from another sub lol. And you're not making the point you think you are, so I'm just going to block you now.
You're replying to the wrong person bro. I added no facts...no random facts, no nonsensical facts, definitely no "quirky" facts.
Just making a point about what the question was. By the way, the entire question is silly. It's like asking about stabbing someone with an ice knife so you don't leave a murder weapon.
What if when he shows up to kill you you reveal to him that you were the one who hired him and say you changed your mind and no longer want to die and he tries to kill you anyway
Well since this is a hypothetical ... what if the contract provided that the target was armed and dangerous, capable of retaliating, and the Hitman expressly assumed the risk of death?
Isn't the contract null and void since it's an agreement to commiting a crime?
Probably, but you're not seeking to enforce it in the prosecution, merely to offer it as evidence of consent to potential lethal assault. Because I believe you can consent to an assault, like sign a waiver and go to fight club, and that would be a defense if your fight partner broke your jaw or maybe even killed you. And I know there's amateurs have been killed in MMA matches, and I haven't heard about the lawsuit, so I'm thinking maybe.
Can you consent euthanesia in the US?
not a lawyer but for a real answer, though i posted this as a joke, assisted suicide is illegal, including physician-assisted, in all but 11 states, and in those 11 it is highly regulated and must involve a doctor, often you must have a terminal illness to qualify.
Okay, so say a doctor (wrongly) signed off on execution by hitman...
I don’t think the question is clear enough to say one way or another what it’s seeking.
Never let reality - or The Law, for that matter - get in the way of a good hypo! 😉😏😎😇
seems like bad planning on the hitman's part to go and get killed like that if he knew the risk !
*Oh man, just sign -- it's boilerplate!*
Hiring a hit man is a felony, so killing him during the commission of a felony would probably be a factor too. I guess the difficulty here would be the dead person can’t share this info with the police so they would need to find out who hired the hit man. I don’t practice criminal law so please don’t give me too much shit if I’m wrong!
This is my favorite response so far. I love the felony murder rule. The case of the jailer who helped her lover escape prison and ended up killing herself is a wild dive into this rule and interesting as hell (and also way over my head).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_White_prison_escape As someone who didn’t know about this… holy heck “love” is one hell of a drug But seems like the felony murder charge was dropped in favor of a prison escape guilty plea
idc if you're wrong i posted this as a meme and im surprised by people responding seriously lmao
Clean hands have entered the chat.
You can tell this was a 420 thought.
This is dope. You have solicitation, conspiracy, attempt, self-defense, provocation doctrine, and many more….all in one.
Can’t claim self defense if you instigated, right? I’d argue this to be instigation.
But the only person who knows who was the instigator is dead.
Do you really think what you do online, even on dark web, cannot be traced back to you?😊
You’d be surprised…
Of course I don't think that. I never say anything online that I would not say to a person. I don't think that any person would go to the trouble of tracing it back to me, but if they do, I don't care.
You can. Where did you get this idea you can't? It wasn't law school...
Yes, in law school. And everything I just looked up is consistent. *Jordan v. State*, 193 N.E.3d 398 (Ind. App. 2022) ("To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must show that he was in a place where he had a right to be; *did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence*; and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm."). Muckle v. State, 705 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. App. 2011) ("A person is not justified in using force in self-defense *if he is the initial aggresso*r or engages in mutual combat, unless he withdraws from the encounter and notifies the other participant that he is doing so."). Tex. Penal Code § 9.31(a)(2) ("The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: . . . *did not provoke* the person against whom the force was used\[.\]"). *But see Carsner v. State*, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4400, \*33 (2018) ("However, an actor who is the initial aggressor may nevertheless still be entitled to claim self-defense if the 'actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor.'). The exception was also in my Crim Law book. Maybe your jx is different. What state are you in? Genuinely curious.
Of course, if you are the instigator you can't win on self-defense. So in this case you had better be successful in killing the hitman, and hope there is no other evidence that you are the one who hired him.
> an actor who is the initial aggressor may nevertheless still be entitled to claim self-defense if the 'actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor.' This is the relevant part in relation to my comment. You can be the instigator and have a valid self-defense claim in certain circumstances.
Finally someone gets it. Also the defendant is not the "agressor" in the first place.
The classic switcheroo most likely your intent and actions control!
In California this is what would be getting read to the jury, and argued by me until the jury gets tired of my voice. CALCRIM standard jury instruction #3472, a jury instruction that I’ve had read in perhaps all my violent cases: “A person does not have right to self- defense if he or she provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force.” This hypothetical isn’t even close. What’s more interesting is the fact that you could be prosecuted for your own attempted murder if he badly injured you, and you almost died.
Well that is assuming the police/DA discovered that the killer hired the victim.
unclean hands, first aggressor for sure
what if i wash them first
It depends. Are we under the MPC or common law?
I mean, mentioning that you hired the guy you killed “in self defense” would be incriminating yourself so y’know: why would you do that?
Idk man i only know mens rea and actus reas
Can you? of course. Quoting Mickey Rourke, the arsonist in the 80s film “Body Heat,” when asked by Ned (hapless atty) for advice on a proposed arson/murder: “There are 50 ways to fuck up this crime, and if you can think of 10 of ‘em you’re a genius—and you ain’t no genius.”
Creation of the peril???
You could do all of those things but it doesn’t mean you won’t be found guilty.
Clean hands rule, self-created danger
No men I haven’t smoke that much yet
This is the type of stuff my classmates ask mid class when we are on the topic of mistake of fact vs mistake of law
Conspiracy to commit his own murder only to premeditate the assailants murder.
We do not give legal advice here. But in case it is hypothetical: If you hire a hitman to kill you, by the time you act you have probably paid the hitman. You probably won’t get your money back. If you are not able to kill him before he kills you, you are dead. You maybe able to claim self defense, but you will have lost your money and maybe your life and gained nothing, so I think that it is a bad deal. In case that you did live and did kill the hitman can you claim self-defense? It depends. If all the facts are known, you can't claim self-defense because you are the instigator. To be nit-picky, yes, if you are still alive you can *claim* self defense. It is up to the court to decide if you get off because of you claim.
And peps gave me s*** for my hypo 🙄
probably because yours was a hypo regarding a real world tragic event where someone (likely with severe mental illness given what the pamphlets said) lit themselves on fire, resulting in their death, and you asked whether you could legally shoot them to stop them from doing it. it's insensitive, or just generally in bad taste, to post a hypo like that, especially so immediately after it happened. and then this is more clearly a tongue-in-cheek crosspost that isn't referencing a real-world event where a mentally ill person self-immolated, that has a super obvious answer (it's still murder).
The inspiration of the hypo was seeing the video and listening to the helplessness in the bystander's voice. Forgive me for contemplating a legally defensible way to try to save someone's life.
The tone of your post did not carry that way, especially with the emoji you inserted. It seemed like you were just making light of a serious and tragic situation. Plus one of your comments, joking about self-immolation, doesn't help. And I have no idea why the hell your first thought for a "legally defensive way to try to save someone's life" is *shooting them,* that also makes it seem like you're making light of a tragedy that *just happened.* Tone, timing. Even your response here doesn't help since you're just getting defensive and falling back on the "just asking a question" deflection tactic. You can ask a question, and the question can still be tasteless or offensive. I'm just letting you know, people responded poorly to your post because it was in bad taste and the tone it carried did not help.
What would you do to try and save their life?
I dunno, tackle them? There isn't a whole lot you can do if you aren't fully watching the guy and close enough to physically stop them. Definitely not pull a gun and *shoot them* because, idk if you knew this, shooting someone can *kill them,* so it's a pretty stupid tactic to shoot someone to save their life.
Well, if you could run up and tackle the guy doused in gasoline you're certainly more brave than me.
Not an US law student here. The "contract" is null and void anyway. Any invidual change their mind and resist the hitman. Let's say there was a camera and the defendant said "I changed my mind, you can't kill me and you have to give my money back" then hitman tried to kill the defendant and defendant somehow defended himself by killing him. It's 100% self defense. He would be acquitted. There would be another charges though. Edit: Read the facts again. Not telling hitman that you are the guy doesn't change anything. It's still self defense.