Should sex trafficking victims be able to kill their assailants and claim self defense

Yes. They can go medieval on their captors and I'll still acquit.

 

I was thinking of the Cyntoia Brown case which is referenced in the article as another case of someone who was trafficked and killed the person she was trafficked to. "Affirmative Defense" is one of those things that I think we need to be very careful with along the lines of "justifiable homicide" I think under self-defense theory there is a good argument that if you are being held in a situation where you are being repeatedly assaulted and your life is very possibly in danger that using lethal force to escape that is justified.

'Affirmative Defense' though gets brought up in a lot of other situations and is one of the arguments that LEO use to justify killing suspects. "I had to shoot the suspect because I thought they might be reaching for a gun". It get's into areas where there is no actual immediate threat just the suspicion that there might be a threat.

 

You are allowed to use force in self-defense when you reasonably believe that you are about to have force used against you, that is that you reasonably believe you are about to be touched in a harmful or offensive manner. You are allowed to use deadly force (that degree of force that is likely to cause great bodily injury or death) when you reasonably believe that you are about to have force used against you that is likely to cause great bodily injury or death. So, when an officer says, "I thought he was reaching for a gun" that is another way of saying, "I reasonably believed that I was about to have force used against me that is likely to cause great bodily injury or death (being shot)." That is all under normal self-defense law and applies to you the same as it does to a LEO. Affirmative defenses are legal defenses that excuse the behavior of the defendant, even though all of the elements of the crime have been established. They are much more common in civil practice, where you will see affirmative defenses like accord and satisfaction, latches, claim of right, and many more. Self-defense is the classic affirmative defense that is used frequently in criminal law.

So, as applies to victims of human trafficking, they would be allowed to use deadly force against their traffickers in the event that they reasonably believed there was an imminent threat of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury being used against them. So they could kill someone who was chasing them with a knife while they ran for the exit, but probably (edit: NOT) a guard that was sleeping next to the exit.

 

#randpaul2024

 

Yes, the not should have been in there.

 

As we both can agree it comes down to what is considered "reasonable". The problem with affirmative defense is again the standard is by definition subjective and there have been plenty of arguments made for that many would argue are not reasonable. For example Derek Chauvin essentially gave that argument to justify his actions towards George Floyd and while his defense didn't specifically argue an affirmative defense their arguments were along those lines. That even though Floyd was handcuffed and restrained by three LEO he still somehow represented a threat so extreme force was still justified.

I would agree on this being taken captive and forced into sex trafficking is already an assault to physical safety.

 

Chauvin was not relying on self-defense, but rather was saying 1) he was not the cause of Floyd's death, 2) that he had the right to arrest Floyd and that his actions were the reasonable actions of an arresting officer facing a resistive subject. It was not at all about Floyd being an extreme threat. He was not saying that he was justified in using deadly force against Floyd because he reasonably feared Floyd was about to use deadly force against him. The first claim is not a defense at all, it is just challenging that the people have met their burden. The second is an affirmative defense based on a statutory authorization to use reasonable force in making an arrest. That degree of force which is reasonable to make an arrest will depend on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest from the perspective of a reasonable police officer. This is an objective, not a subjective, standard.

 

Chauvin told Charles McMillan, who was a witness to the situation, that ""We gotta control this guy, he's a sizeable guy... looks like, looks like he's probably on something,". That is justification that extreme force had to be used on Floyd because he could've been a danger.

Basing a standard on "I thought" is a subjective by definition.

 

Everything a person does is subjective to that person. The reasonable officer standard is an objective standard. You can look it up in any case where it is defined. An officer saying they think someone has a gun doesn't change an objective standard to a subjective standard, it is one of the many factors that make up the totality of circumstances against which the standard is measured, "Does the officer believe the subject is armed?"

The Chauvin quote is exactly in line with the reasonable force to complete an arrest defense.

 

"Belief" is subjective. If I say I believe that the Astros won the 2019 WS that wouldn't be an objective statement. An LEO saying that they believed the suspect had a gun isn't objective unless there is other proof that the suspect had the gun.

In that case it was following after Chauvin knew that Floyd had likely already died because both the EMS and other LEO had told him they couldn't find a pulse. He was making a post fact justification to a witness that was demanding to know why he used that force. As it turns out a jury and even other LEO didn't think that was reasonable.

If you and Chauvin believe that is an objective standard you're just showing how subjective it actually is.

 

To sum up, you can shoot a guy for holding a cell phone, but not a guy holding you prisoner so you can be repeatedly raped. Nothing wrong here!

 

Yes, but that is not part of the standard, it is part of the facts and circumstances to which the standard is applied. The standard is an objective standard, meaning it is not what the officer in question subjectively intends, it is the objective standard of what an average reasonable police officer in the same situation would consider reasonable. Here is how the Supreme Court put it in Graham v. Connor, et al. (1989) 490 US 386, 397.

The Supreme Court of the United States says it is an objective standard. That is what guides me as an attorney. You can think as you like about it.

If you think a guy holding a cell phone is holding a gun and is about to shoot you with it, you can shoot him because he represents an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. If a guy is sleeping next to a door, you cannot, even if his job is to prevent you from escaping bondage, because he doesn't represent an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury if you just sneak past him while he is sleeping. Realistically, you are probably never getting prosecuted if you are a sex slave and kill one of your guards while escaping.

 

This is a problem with language. Yes it is objective that there is a standard and yes it is objective what a "reasonable" police officer would consider reasonable, the problem is "reasonable" isn't objective as it requires a situational judgement dependent on POV. All this standard says is that in the same situation a police officer would be just as subjective as the one in question.

As an attorney I can understand how you have to follow the law but this is a situation where the basis is subjective. Anytime the term "reasonable" is used it is always subjective. In my field when we have to make "reasonable accommodation" in meeting the ADA. That is very subjective as in one case it could mean a building doesn't have wheelchair accessible entrances while in another it means that all entrances have to be wheelchair accessible.

This is one of the biggest problems I see with LEO use of force and why it's been so difficult to even charge LEO for use of force in situations where much of the public doesn't agree and a civilian in the same circumstance likely is charged and convicted. The standard of "reasonable" is determined and reinforced by LEO themselves who obviously have a bias in what would be considered "reasonable".

 

I get the logic. Sometimes, though, the law can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Then your problem is with the language used in the law. Since you are talking about laws though, it makes the most sense to use legal language.