Claiming That Somebody Was Suicidal as a Defense to Battery or Unlawful Restraint

[Question4law]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: MI

A friend of mine was involved kidnapping/battery case that involved an out of control suicidal girlfriend trying to cut herself with knives. After she initially successfully slashed her wrist, he feared for her life as well as his own and attempted to disarm and restrain her several times. At one point she attempted to leave the apartment with a knife in her hand, and he pulled her back into apartment out of fear that she would run away and hurt/kill herself, or hurt someone else in the apartment complex. The police were called by neighbors, and he was encountered restraining the girl by the wrists on the sofa, with a bloodied knife he had just confiscated from her shoved out of reach beneath the sofa. Witnesses saw the girl get pulled back into the apartment, but did not see the knife she had in her hand. Witnesses also heard the girl threaten to kill herself during the argument. The girl was sent to the psychiatric ER for the slashed wrist, the male was sent to jail.

My question is, is it an affirmative defense to a kidnapping/battery charge to restrain and disarm an unwilling individual who is armed and poses a threat to either themselves or others? Is it a better defense for him to say he feared for his OWN life, OTHERS lives, or that he feared for HER life if she was the person who was armed and communicating suicidal threats. Would an affirmative defense win a not-guilty verdict alone, or would it require a conviction with a mitigated sentence?

The most bizarre part about this case is that the girl was the one who was armed and acting disorderly, and even menacingly I'd say. But the boyfriend was the one who was charged... for restraining a person with a weapon. Doesn't seem right.

[Dogmatique]

This would be something he can discuss with his attorney.

Unless you were present, by the way, you cannot say how she was acting. At all. Even if.

[Question4law]

Unless you were present, by the way, you cannot say how she was acting. At all. Even if.

Do you say this in a legalistic capacity, like what I would be able to communicate to a court or a police officer (i.e. hearsay)? Or do you mean just in general I can't say that, because I feel like I'm entitled to communicate how someone was acting based on others testimony to me and the facts of the police report here. I guess I'm missing your point here.

[Taxing Matters]

Michigan allows for a defense if the boyfriend reasonably thought that “that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.” MCL § 780.972.

The problem is that your story indicates that he was not acting in self-defense; i.e., neither he nor any other person was at risk of imminent harm. She was walking out of the apartment and he pulled her back inside. He’d not have been in any danger once she left. Thus clearly he was not at any risk of imminent harm at that time. Nor was anyone else, since no one else was in the immediate area and she certainly wasn’t attacking anyone at that point. She might have been a risk to herself, but the statute as written only allows for the use of force if she was going to hurt someone else. Thus, from what you have said, your friend appears to have a very weak case that the use of force against her was justified. Obviously, though, facing these serious charges he needs to discuss with his lawyer what possible options he has for a defense in this case. There might be some other more promising way to attack it than relying on a self-defense argument.

What he should have done was called 911 and have experts deal with her. Unless he was trained to deal with that, fighting with her over the knife could easily have resulted in very serious harm to her or to himself. I realize that he was likely in a pretty emotional state seeing her in that condition, but he needed to keep his head and make the call rather than jumping in and trying to disarm her himself.

[Question4law]

Call me naive, I guess what I'm most shocked about is that such serious charges can result from a completely non-malicious, and quite possibly even altruistic intentions. Sure, maybe he was in an argument with the girl to begin with, but what goes through your head when someone starts telling you they are going to kill themselves, and then cuts their own wrist? He definitely should have called the police, and he definitely should have known his and her own rights a little better so he could have avoided this predicament. It's just a sad case all around. He loved her and he was trying to help her, not hurt her.

[Taxing Matters]

Call me naive, I guess what I'm most shocked about is that such serious charges can result from a completely non-malicious, and quite possibly even altruistic intentions.

You’ve heard the old saying, I’m sure, that “no good deed goes unpunished.” This is a situation that would seem to fit that saying. His heart was, if what you say is true, in the right place. But the police and prosecutor, with the information they have, may not believe that to be the case. Only he knows for sure what his true intentions were. It may be that he can come up with a workable defense to this. That will depend on exactly what the charges are, what evidence the state plans to present, and what evidence the defense has available. I think self-defense, based on what you said, is pretty weak but there might be something else that his lawyer comes up with that may be more promising. It is unfortunate that people sometimes end up on the wrong side of the law even though their intentions were honorable. But it does happen, particularly when people act on impulse or strong emotion, which can cloud otherwise clear thinking.

[Question4law]

Thanks for the insight TM. Just for clarification though, his 'intentions' good or bad, will have no legal bearing on the defense of his case, right? The facts are that he willfully DID something illegal in the effort of doing something (he perceived) morally good. I guess this shows how morals and laws do not always coincide. Perhaps he'll get lucky through a jury nullification.

[cdwjava]

On the other hand, perhaps his story is not as clear or benevolent as you believe it was.

He should speak with his attorney and ONLY his attorney. Anything he tells YOU is not protected and you could be called as a witness for the state against him.

[Dogmatique]

Do you say this in a legalistic capacity, like what I would be able to communicate to a court or a police officer (i.e. hearsay)? Or do you mean just in general I can't say that, because I feel like I'm entitled to communicate how someone was acting based on others testimony to me and the facts of the police report here. I guess I'm missing your point here.

My point is quite simple: unless you were actually present, you really have no idea whether or not she appeared "menacing". You're relying on hearsay.

[Question4law]

Then as a legal argument, I suppose you are correct. I could not stand before a jury and tell them what I just told you. On the other hand, he could.

I guess the bigger question I have, is if this all was the actual truth of the story. And she was the out of control person wielding a deadly weapon and using it violently just in general... Why wasn't she the one charged with any crime? At least disorderly conduct. And even if she did communicate a direct threat to him during this situation, would the police even have believed him? Could that have done anything to get him out of trouble?