Is Choking a Thief to Death Considered Self-Defense?

According to news reports, a homeowner who had been discharged from the Marine Corps for eight years bravely fought an intruder to protect his pregnant wife, ending up rendering the thief unconscious by choking him. Unexpectedly, this later resulted in the thief's death. Let's consider this: assuming the thief had not died, but rather woke up after being knocked out and sent to the hospital, this incident likely would not have sparked any controversy. When a burglar enters a residence, there is naturally a risk of being caught in the act or beaten. As the general public knows—and thieves themselves are well aware—this is an "occupational hazard." If the thief had survived, being choked unconscious and arrested would mean the homeowner's actions constituted "self-defense" and were "just right." In this case, however, the thief died, and since a human life is at stake, the issue of whether the defense was "excessive" must be discussed.

Self-Defense Has Requirements

It is far too simplistic to say: "There is nothing wrong with beating a thief to death; who told them to break in and steal things in the first place, or else how are we supposed to protect ourselves!" Whether a homeowner who beats a thief to death is guilty or innocent actually depends on the specific circumstances. Simply put, if self-defense is established, the person is not guilty; if self-defense is not established, they are guilty and bear criminal responsibility for causing death by negligence.

There are three key elements to self-defense: first, someone must have first committed an act of "infringement against another"; second, this infringement must be "immediate and present"; and third, the victim's act of resistance must not be excessive. A thief breaking into a home is certainly an act of infringement—residential intrusion, theft, and potentially harming the homeowner are all infringements.

Secondly, the thief's infringing act must be "immediate and present." Therefore, if the thief has already been subdued, one can no longer beat and kick them. If the thief has already run away and escaped to the main street, even though anyone may apprehend a flagrant offender, one cannot drag them back for a beating and still claim it is self-defense, because the thief's infringing act has already concluded.

In short, self-defense can only counter hazards that are immediately and momentarily likely to occur. Once the critical situation has passed, it is "no longer" self-defense.

Finally, all circumstances must be comprehensively evaluated to determine whether the defense was "excessive." This means that even when facing an immediate and present infringement, the retaliatory measures must not be disproportionate. Determining whether it is "excessive" or not is the most difficult part, because it requires recalling the people, events, timing, locations, objects, and other circumstances at the scene—a form of "hindsight is 20/20" reasoning working backwards from the "aftermath" to the "time of the incident."

Concrete Evaluation of Whether Defense Was Excessive

How severity is measured and proportionality is struck are closely related to various contextual factors, as well as standards. The most extreme standard is "a man's home is his castle." Once someone enters my home, they have entered my castle. Placing extreme value on privacy and personal space, entering my home is inherently wrong, and any consequences cannot be blamed on the homeowner. Intentionally trespassing individuals must bear all consequences and responsibilities themselves, even paying the price with their lives.

Taiwan does not place such extreme emphasis on privacy, and this extreme standard would likely spark controversy. Therefore, we must return to individual cases for a concrete assessment. Based on media information, circumstances that might constitute excessive defense include: the homeowner being a Marine (implying good combat skills and using excessive force), the thief seemingly not carrying a weapon (lacking proportionality), and the person ultimately dying (a severe outcome).

Conversely, circumstances where self-defense is not excessive include: the thief having a larger physical build (necessitating heavier force), and the thief striking first (with the homeowner merely reacting passively). The situation arose abruptly, caught the homeowner off guard, left no time for deep thought, and relied solely on instinctive reaction (insufficient response time for the homeowner to judge on the spot whether the thief was armed, how great the danger actually was, or to precisely gauge the lightness or heaviness of their maneuvers).

The Director-General's Statement Can Be Taken with a Grain of Salt

Following this discussion, whether there was excessive defense is left to the moral compass in everyone's heart. As for National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chun stating during an interpellation in the Legislative Yuan that encountering such a situation "should be reported to the police," and waiting for police to arrive and handle it is "more appropriate," this remark shows he is completely out of touch and utterly fails to understand the basic legal principles of self-defense. With a leader like this, it is hardly surprising that the public often complains that the police lack the most fundamental legal concepts.

Self-defense exists precisely to grant citizens the opportunity to fight back and resort to self-help against unlawful infringements of the moment when the law or law enforcement officers (especially the police) are too late to intervene, without having to worry about subsequent legal liability. Even if severe consequences are caused, as long as it is self-defense, one bears no responsibility.

This is because the person who provokes this state of affairs is the one who first initiates the infringement against others, and the law chooses to prioritize the protection of those acting in self-defense. This also means that the law warns everyone not to easily infringe upon others, lest they hurt others and harm themselves, or injure others and destroy themselves.