@lurkerbynature: necessity isn't the same defense, oddly enough. Necessity is even broader— like, killing someone on a train to keep it from crashing into an occupied train.

@snobographer: I don't think the logic is that they should be allowed to, but that their sentence should be lighter than it would be without that belief.

@maude_flanders: A criminal deserves zealous defense, the same as anyone else. Even if they are horrible, the integrity of the system, which requires zealous advocacy, must be maintained.

@RStewie: Most things in law have intent and mens rea as a relevant feature. It isn't saying it's ok, it's saying the defense is treating it as a different type of crime.

@GlitteryUnicorn: I'm guessing they probably had the whole "this is when I'll be home, this is what the doors are like, do this" and probably even a safety word worked out. The creep would have to go into detail to make it seem plausible, right?

@Cairn: thank you for your clarification on deadly force! I'm apparently only really remembering my state and the general model code. :-/

@hannahp79: Honor killings wouldn't fit in with this, though. Mens rea— intent and beliefs— are already an established part of legal defense. He's just using one that is not normally used in his situation— and he will most likely not win on it.

@envirodesigner: I know, and that makes me so sad. Especially since I have a friend who has had some issues because of her self-defense against an abusive ex. (she bit him to get him off of her, he took a picture of the bite mark and used it months later).

@lurkerbynature: The greater good isn't the issue so much as the defense of others is. The legal defense he's using applies to defense of self or others (or in some rare states, as SunburnedCounsel pointed out, Real Property).

@femme-bot: And that's why he's going to lose, and why he should lose. I'm not arguing this defense should prevail, just that it IS a valid defense, and it should be interesting to see how it works. And your friend point is exactly on point, and part of the point I'm making— if you think someone is GOING to murder…

@SunburnedCounsel: Oooh, thanks! i wasn't aware that some states still have that!

@envirodesigner: What about abused women who kill their abuser while s/he sleeps? I think there SHOULD be a legal defense for that, and there often is, actually, though it usually (unfortunately) does not succeed.

@Bunsen Honeydew: Well, insanity itself can help mitigate crimes, so I think that's what you're going for there.

@Anna N.: But things that justify deadly force are limited to defense of self or defense of others, right? I might be wrong, but from what I recall, that's what the phrase actually means. Another law Jez want to weigh in?

Also, guys— it isn't just a belief it was justified we're talking about, but a belief he was acting in the defense of others and that killing one man would save tons of babies. That's how it needs to be framed, even if wrong.

An unreasonable but honest belief can be used to decrease the charge severity/punishment.

@SwirlGirl: They get locked up, sadly, because if they don't they get stolen. Stupid insecure teens are embarrassed about buying, and will swipe if its an option.

@PaigeTurner: She's either lost a lot of weight, or the outfit doesn't fit her properly— she doesn't look bad, but she does look a lot thinner than normal, and something about the colors of the outfit plus her hairstyle is giving a bit of a bobble-head affect.

@Crackers in Bed: Some people don't fly often. I didn't fly anywhere until December 2007, and I was baffled trying to keep all the rules in my head.

@Ack: Eh, I don't think a history of partying means you can't take awful things seriously. If anything, it seems more like a wake up— if even a hard-partying actress can see that something needs done, then why aren't more people helping?