Module 11 Flashcards
Is it ever reasonable to use deadly force against a non-deadly attack?
No
What is self-defense?
someone that is not the aggressor in an encounter, is justified in using a reasonable amount of force against his adversary when he reasonably believes:
- That he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm, and
- That the use of such force is necessary to avoid the danger
If what you have done is reasonable, self defense is a complete defense to what crimes?
Murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault and battery, aggravated assault and battery, and some others
In order for you to use force in self-defense, the defendants force or belief of such force must be what?
Unlawful (it must be a crime or tort)
If you consent to force, can you use self-defense as an excuse to defend yourself?
No
What is deadly force?
Force that its users uses with the intent to cause death or serious GBI to another, or that he knows created substantial risk of death or GBI to another ie) firing at someone with the intent to kill
If you fire at someone intending to kill them, and you miss or just cause bodily harm, is that considered deadly force?
Yes
When is it justifiable to use deadly force in self-defense?
When you reasonably believe that the other is about to inflict unlawful death or GBI on you and you think it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent it
What is non-deadly force?
Moderate force ie) threatening to use deadly force with no intention to carry it out or pointing a gun at an attacker but not pulling the trigger
Can you use a weapon on an unarmed defendant?
Generally no, but you can take into account things like the respective sizes of the people, gender, health, multiple defendants,’s violin defendants, past violent conduct
If you believe it is necessary to use force to prevent harm what is the important qualifier?
It must be reasonable. If you honestly but unreasonably believe it was necessary, you will lose
If you believe is necessary to use reasonable force, and that belief is reasonable, but you are mistaken about it, do you still have a defense of self-defense?
Sometimes ie) you shoot to death someone that threatened to kill you when they were reaching into their pocket for what you thought was a gun, but it turned out to be Kleenex. It was reasonable for you to think it was a gun
Can voluntary intoxication be the reason you made a mistake about it and the reasonableness of your belief that it was necessary to use force to prevent harm?
You don’t have a defense is a sober man wouldn’t have made the same mistake
What does the MPC say about reasonable belief for self-defense?
An honest belief will suffice, it doesn’t have to be reasonable. Defendant must actually believe in the necessity for force
In order to use self-defense what must you believe about the timeframe for an attack?
You must reasonably believe that the unlawful violence is almost immediately forthcoming, the attack must appear imminent
Hypo: A kidnaps and confines B with the announced intention of killing him one week later. B has an opportunity to kill A and escape each morning when he gets food. Technically the imminent requirement means B can’t use force until A is standing over him trying to kill him. What should B do?
That cannot be avoided if the victim wait until the last moment, then self-defense must allow him to act earlier. He can act as early as is necessary to defend himself
What is battered woman syndrome?
A man physically and psychologically abuses his wife or loved one, games for forgiveness, seeks her love and reconciliation and then repeat the cycle over and over so many times that the woman at all times hoping the relationship will last, is reduced to state of learned helplessness
How does the imminency requirement of self defense work in a battered woman syndrome situation?
It is often loosely construed, so a woman can take action before an immediate threat of deadly harm occurs
If you are the aggressor in a self-defense situation, can you claim self-defense?
No because the force that you were defending against must be unlawful, but the actual force an aggressor is defending against is lawful because it was brought in self-defense
What Are the two situations where an aggressor might be justified in self-defense?
1) anon deadly aggressor is met with deadly force in response. He can defend himself against the deadly attack, because by using to be force, the victim is doing an unlawful act
2) if an aggressor in good faith withdraws from the encounter and notifies the victim of this, or at least takes reasonable steps to notify the victim, and the right to self-defense is restored
If you provoke the use of force against yourself for the purpose of causing serious bodily harm, are you permitted to use self-defense?
No, and the same goes for force that comes from combat by agreement, and criminal activities
What is the duty to retreat in self-defense cases?
A) Majority: you can safely retreat, you don’t have to do so as long as you don’t use deadly force
B) minority: you must retreat before using deadly force if you can do so in safety, but you don’t have to unless you know you can be completely safe, and you don’t have to retreat from your home or place of business (unless the assailant lives there too)
Does the retreat requirement of self-defense apply to a police officer or private person assisting him?
No
How has the NRA helped to expand the rights to use deadly force since 2005?
A. No permits at home resident to kill an intruder by presuming, rather than requiring proof of reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury
B. Rejects the duty to retreat, even when retreat is possible (not just home, any public space)