Criminal Responsibility Of A Sherriff's Deputy (Deputy)

1 Introduction

On Tuesday 25 October, 2015, it was reported that a Sherriff’s Deputy (hereon known as ‘Deputy’) shot and killed a 13-year-old boy named Andy Lopez (hereon known as ‘Lopez’). To hold the Deputy criminally liable for this crime, the state would need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he committed an unlawful and voluntary act, while simultaneously possessing the necessary criminal capacity and fault (also known as mens rea). The following essay shall assess the Deputy’s criminal liability and consider whether the Deputy has any defence, focusing particularly on the elements of the crime called unlawfulness and fault and expanding into negligence and intent.

2 Unlawfulness

If the conduct of an accused complies with the formal

It must be committed by a human and cannot be justified. Furthermore, the attack must be actual. In this case, Lopez was a human and his supposed, imminent shooting was not justified. However, the attack was not actual as Lopez merely possessed a replica AK-47 and a fake pistol, rather than real and dangerous weapons.

The second requirement is that the attack must be against a recognized legal interest. This includes, inter alia, the right to protect ‘life and limb ’. In this case, the Deputy supposedly repelled an attack against his life, which qualifies as ‘life and limb’. Furthermore, an accused is allowed to repel an attack against a third party. In addition to a threat on his own life, the Deputy acted to defend the threat that he thought was being posed on the life of his partner and the surrounding community members. Hence, the attack was against a recognized legal interest.

The third requirement is that the attack must either have already commenced, or must be imminent. The Deputy reports that he saw Lopez turn around and begin to lift his ‘weapon’. The Deputy assumed this was to shoot him, his partner, or those around them. In this way, it is evident that the attack was

In this way, a defence which uses more force than necessary is deemed unlawful. It is reasonable that to avert Lopez’s threat of being shot at, the Deputy shot Lopez. However, it must be mentioned that the Deputy shot at Lopez eight times, of which all were aimed at the upper body area. This conduct is unreasonable. To avert Lopez’s threat, the Deputy need only have hindered his capability to attack by shooting once or twice at his lower body. Hence, the Deputy used more force than necessary and responded unreasonably to the