A woman entered self-defense mode and killed a man. Is the woman right in this situation? Is it permissible to kill a person if they point a replica pistol at you?

Alexey Deripaska

You know, a recent episode immediately came to mind, similar to the premise of the comedy “S Legkim Parom” (Enjoy Your Bath), but in the modern USA. A policewoman, thinking she was going to her own home, accidentally enters someone else’s house. There she sees a strange man and immediately kills him, mistaking him for a burglar.

It is quite obvious that in this tragic misunderstanding, the full responsibility lies with the woman, because the object of the attack did absolutely nothing to provoke it. The behavior of the woman, convinced that she had discovered a burglar, is completely logical and commendable: only such a lightning-fast reaction guarantees that the burglar will not have time to draw and use a gun first. But a mistake does not exempt one from responsibility, and a legal proceeding between the woman and the plaintiff, who filed a claim for damages resulting from the killing, will most likely lead to the woman having to pay the costs in full.

But now we add the provocative behavior of the deceased to the problem. It turns out that the emergence of a situation in which the woman defended herself from a presumed attack was caused not just by a tragic mistake, but is a direct consequence of the deceased’s reckless actions. Her behavior is also completely logical and commendable, as in the first case, but the party whose actions directly provoked the accident is different.

Therefore, a potential court proceeding here will most likely conclude that the man who threatened the woman with a dummy gun bears full responsibility. Wanted to play a prank? Well, congratulations, you played a fucking great prank!