united-states criminal-law discrimination
Murdering somebody somebody in part because you do not like his religious beliefs
<p>Image that person X does not like people who practice a certain religion. He knows that his co-worker, person Y, practices that religion. Person X believes that it is always wrong to kill (including in self defense or defense of other people) another person unless that person practices a religion he does not like.</p>
<p>One day person Y comes into the office with a machine gun and starts killing people at random. Person X could get out of the building. Person X would normally do that except that he does not like the religion of person Y. Therefore person X takes out his gun, which he legally owns, and kills person Y saving several lives in the process.</p>
<p>Did person X illegally discriminate against person Y?</p>

<p>Not all discrimination is unlawful. It is discrimination for me not to invite my neighbours to a housewarming party* but no law would be broken. Needless to say, there don't appear to be any laws about discrimination when it comes to self-defense.</p>
<p>In this case, it is extremely unlikely X would even be charged with anything. They'd have a complete defense- even if they had the duty to retreat, they were protecting their coworkers- and doing so would be incredibly unpopular as X would likely be considered a national hero.</p>
<p>If X did murder Y, that would be different. It would be treated as a hate crime, resulting in a higher sentence and/or elevating the class of murder.</p>
<p>*I would never do this of course. I hate parties.</p>

<p>The term &quot;discrimination&quot; is used legally in a relatively narrow context, to describe certain acts – in a specific context – that would otherwise be legal but are made illegal in case the basis for taking (refraining from) the action, for example hiring, making a sale, renting. In the situation that you describe, X is not subject to any legal sanction for religious discrimination, because X is &quot;just a guy&quot; and he is not a company illegally discriminating against a person based on religion. The company might get in trouble if they tolerated / encouraged religious discrimination. Employment discrimination laws directly limit the actions of employers, not employees (the employer is expected to keep employees in line by appropriate HR actions).</p>
<p>However, X may have committed a <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.080" rel="nofollow noreferrer">hate crime</a>, depending on the state. But, I say <em>may</em> have. Hate crime laws are designed to add a penalty for crimes motivated by impermissible considerations such as religion. So the question becomes whether the killing is itself a crime. Normally it would be, but in the described scenario, <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it is lawful</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully
aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense
against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious
interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her
possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this context it <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.030" rel="nofollow noreferrer">is not excusable</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in
doing any lawful act by lawful means, without criminal negligence, or
without any unlawful intent</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clearly, X had a criminal intent. Might it be <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050" rel="nofollow noreferrer">justifiable</a>? It must be either</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife,
parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or
her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend
a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do
some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and
there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(which seems to be the case), or else</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the
slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other
place of abode, in which he or she is</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which might technically be (if Y gunning for X as well?).</p>
<p>Interpreting the part of the law that refer to &quot;In the lawful defense&quot; is crucial. <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Ief9eb0f5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?viewType=FullText&amp;originationContext=documenttoc&amp;transitionType=StatuteNavigator&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> is the jury instruction document that &quot;explains&quot; what that means. There isn't a colorable legal theory where you can kill a person using the fact of them killing others as a pretext: it has to be &quot;for the purpose of defending self or others&quot;.</p>
<p>In general, you have available the use of deadly force in self defense of others, but that is not the same as &quot;use of deadly fore using defense of others as a pretext&quot;. The prosecution would have the burden of proving that X illegally intended to murder Y, and used the context as a pretext for doing so. Thus X is convicted of murder, and because the motivation was religion, he is also guilty of committing a hate crime, which is a class C felony (thus increasing the penalty).</p>
