Say there was this girl. And she falsely accuses this guy of date raping her. The guy is arrested, booked, taken to jail, and officially charged with rape. He's out on bail, while awaiting trial. If convicted, he'll be sentenced to 15 years to life.

At trial, "rape shield" laws will prevent the jury from knowing that the accuser has falsely accused other men of raping her.  The ER doc will testify that she presented with "bruising and swelling consistent with forced intercourse" (But he will not mention that it's also consistent with vigorous but consensual sex.) The attending nurse will testify that the accuser's overall demeanor was consistent with that of a victim of rape. (But will not add that it's also consistent with a false accuser who wants people to believe she was raped.) The responding police officer will testify that the accuser was "very distraught" at the time he took her statement, but that was "understandable considering the ordeal she had been through."

The "victim" herself will testify the next morning. The judge, sensing the case is a bit weak, has enough time to instruct the jury that "no corroborating  evidence is needed to convict, if the jury believes the testimony of the victim."

The defendant needs a drink, and goes to a nearby bar, for a beer. While there, he is surprised to run into his accuser, who is in a more celebratory mood, and drinking drinks called "blue motercycles".  They sit at a booth, and talk.  She admits to her lies, saying that she just felt slutty and used after the consensual sex they had had. Told him how much she hated all men, and loved to see them suffer. Demonstrated how she could cry real tears, on cue, and explained that's what she was going to do tomorrow on the witness stand, while lying to the jury about her "horrific experience".

He forms a hasty plan.  Goes out to his car and fills a small flask with anti-freeze. Slips some into her drink while she's not looking. Next day, she's too sick to attend court. Goes to the hospital instead. She dies of anti-freeze poisoning before the trial can resume. Without her testimony, the case is dismissed.

QUESTION:  Was the falsely accused man acting in self-defense when he poisoned his accuser?

[EevilJ]

Speaking as someone who faced this type of situation (false accusation of rape by someone who had falsely accused someone before and evidence not bought in by prosecution that would have quickly cleared me of all charges), I'll be happy to say a hearty "FUCK NO IT ISN'T SELF DEFENSE TO POISON SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ACCUSED YOU OF SOMETHING".

If you get wrongly (or rightly) accused, you use a lawyer, not poison. Killing someone who accuses you is fucking ADMISSION of guilt in my opinion. Everything- EVERY SINGLE THING- you mentionned here can be bought up in court with a decent lawyer (rape shield or no rape shield). All it takes is one momentary slip up from someone on the prosecution team to bring her entire past into play. All it takes is asking the doctor the simple (and LEGAL) question "Was the tearing also consistant with consentual sex?" (optional follow-up: "Doctor, in your expert opinion was it from rape or consentual sex?" if you have a doctor who you know doesn't believe her. Expert testimony is allowed.). All it takes is asking the nurse "Was her agitated state ALSO cosistant with someone who is FAKING panic? Can you tell the difference? How?"

Really, the idea that rape is a crime that you must be convicted of even if you are innocent is ludicrous. Evil women don't convict innocent men. BAD LAWYERS DO. And the best assistant a lawyer will EVER have in your rape case is YOU. You know what did and didn't happen. You know where to point him. If you don't do that, you are toats and you are at least partly to blame. When I was accused, DNA evidence was still a new thing (the OJ case had just made it a household phrase). I pointed my lawyer in that direction, knowing this (married) woman had not only lied about me, but she had fucked my buddy (NOT her husband) that night. When that was introduced (and YES the prosecution fought like HELL for us not to get it), the case started unravelling for them. I knew that the cop who arrested me was her cousin and had lied on stand about her demeanor and history and I apssed that on to my lawyer who tore him apart over it. I knew the sytsem was rigged, but I knew the holes in that rigging and got through.

Killing her would have been a cowardly and guilty thing to do. Especially after the fact. There's a difference between revenge and self defence.

[RopeFiend]

Oh, and Ray?  You need to look into the actual application of the "rape shield" laws.  Evidence of prior claims of false rape ARE admissible in court.  In fact, there are a variety of ways to bypass the "rape shield" laws if it can be proved relevant to the current case.

Sorry, but false accusation doesn't warrant murder.  If you're concerned about a 15 year stint with time off for good behavior and no priors, try worrying about Death Row, instead.

[Lois]

Why do I get the feeling that Ray answered another Craig's List ad and got in trouble?

Ray,

I have to agree with Evilj and Ropefiend on this one. Your guy has demonstrated, "Malice and Forethought" meaning he will be charged with 1st Degree Murder. Depending on the State, he will end up in the Death House, or rotting away in Prison.

Does it suck that there are vindictive bitches whom prey on men? Absolutely. Does it suck that there are Lawyers whom should be flipping burgers instead of arguing cases? Also, absolutely.

Does it suck that I, as a Sworn Officer, has to slap 'cuffs on someone whom might have been falsely Accused? Absolutely.

Does this sceneario warrant cold-blooded Murder? Absolutely Not.

[Jefferson James]

In order to claim self-defense, you have to have exhausted every means to evade harm. If someone is coming at you with a knife and you shoot and kill them, you are going down for murder unless it was not possible for you to run away. I had a cop explain this when I was 21 and stabbed a high school kid in the chest with a metal ballpoint pen resulting in only scratches. The cop that I spoke to (I was asking for a restraining order) told me that I might be charged with over-defending myself. Once they brought the "boy" in to get his side of it, however, the cop apologized and said he didn't think it was possible for him to over-defend himself against this kid.

@ Evil:  Some good points you made there. However, in a fair judicial system, actual innocence should be a sufficient defense--but it isn't here in America.  And the ability to hire a legal dream-team vs. being assigned a court appointed attorney should NOT make a difference in the verdict of an innocent person. People should not be found guilty based on their financial status.
Also, I started this senario with the idea that rape is a crime that you CAN be convicted of even if innocent. (Not that you "MUST" be convicted of even if innocent, which you called "ludicrous".) Big difference between can and must.

@ Ropefiend:  Being worried about a 15 year stint vs. a more severe sentence is just a matter of degree.  I would say that anyone facing either sentence would have every right to be worried; and infinitly moreso if the person was innocent or acted in self defense.  Also, with regard to Rape Shield laws, the point is that the trial begins with a stacked deck, with a thumb on the scales of justice creating a clear imbalance weighted against the male.

@ Lois:  As the person who introduced me to CraigsList, you should know it ain't what it used to be. Maybe it still works as intended in Craig's Hometown, but here in the flyover states, CL personals is strictly, 100% "spam only".  All real ads are immediatly taken down, and the posters of those ads lose their posting privilages.
So to answer your question, no, no trouble here. The senario is 100% hypothetical, and born of the general injustice we all know exists and is imbedded deeply in the current judicial system.

@ Tony:  With a hint of chivalry, your bias is showing. You just have to reduce it down to it's elements to see it.  I'll help:  As you know, the penalty for a rape conviction, in some states, is dying in prison.  So when you say the scenario doesn't warrant murder, what you are saying is that it's better for an innocent man to be sent to prison to die, than for a false accuser to be killed before sending him there. 
Also, WHY would you "slap the cuffs on" someone who might have been falsely accused?  Wouldn't it be better to investigate 1st, and arrest later?  I trust you'll spare me the "just doing my job" excuse...

@ Jefferson:  Well thought out response, but in this particular case, the defendant's ability to flee the situation is soon going to be hampered by the very state who's job it is to protect and serve him.

Ray,

Taking someone into custody is never to be taken lightly. As an Investigator, if the evidence warrants an Arrest, then one will be effected. As a Line Officer, if there is an accusation, and if there is Reasonable Suspicion, whici leads to Probable Causen then there will be an Arrest. Unless I KNOW the accusation is flse, I have no choice, I MUST investigate to a logical end. If that means an Arrest, then it is up to the District Attorney to sort it out. I Investigate, preserve Evidence, and make sure the suspect and the victim's Rights are protected.

Having said that, yes, Innocent people go on Trial, and yes, unfortunately, some innocent people do get Convicted and sent to Prison. This is what the Appeals process is for. It truly is tragic to have sent innocent people to Prison, when I recognized the error, I attempted to remedy the error.

Ray, I thank you for the gentle rebuke. I hope this explanation helps.

[EevilJ]

(I hate that I had to unignore Ray to read his response. At least it wasn't bad and stuck to the subject)

You mistake that you would need a "dream team" to prove your own innocence. I had a public defender. I also had a brain and access to the law library. Between those elements, I proved my innocence. The judge even went so far as to chastise the prosecutor in court when he pronounced me innocent of all charges. No dream team needed. No money needed (I was poor then and still am). It can (and did) happen.

And when I say you must be found guilty, I'm coming from your premise that this is, in your mind, the lethal administration of self defense. The ONLY way you can (intentionally) kill someone and have it qualify as self defence is for there to be no alternative OTHER than killing that person to protect you or someone else. So, yeah, to say you MUST be prosecuted of rape is ludicrous and that is what you said when you said there was no other choice but to kill this person.