JURI 540- DISCUSSION THREAD SELF DEFENSE
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
540
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by EarlWillpowerArmadillo29
a.
When the youth told Katz to give them 5 dollars he responded and that that he has no
money. After responding, the youths turned their backs to Katz and moved a few feet
away from him. Katz then takes aim at each youth and fires at their backs. The law
permits a person to act in “self-defense”, and to be acquitted for killing in “self-defense”,
even if the person killed did not in fact represent a deadly threat to the defender, if the
defender subjectively believed that deadly force was required and if a reasonable person
would also have believed that it was appropriate under the circumstances. Joshua
Dressler,
Understanding Criminal Law
225 (8
TH
ed. 2018). This is referred to as the
reasonable belief standard. Katz was previously mugged on the streets of the city, so it is
safe to assume he was already on edge. When people go through a traumatic experience,
it tends to change the way they view things and how they act. Katz saw that the 4 youths
had screwdrivers on them which can be used as a weapon. The youth demanded that he
give them 5 dollars and even though he stated that he did not have any money, it is still
reasonable to believe that answer would not be accepted. Now, Katz did not kill the youth
which is a strong argument for self-defense. He only aimed to protect himself from the
potential threat. A prosecutor on this case could argue the proportionality component
which provides that a person is not justified in using force that is excessive in relation to
the harm threatened.
Id.
at 212. A person may use a non-serious force to repel a minor
physical threat. Once Katz told the youth, he did not have any money, they stepped away
from him and even turned their backs to him. A prosecutor could argue they was no
physical threat. The youth never actually said anything threatening. The necessity rule
provides that force should not be used against another person unless, and only to the
extent that, it is necessary.
Id.
In the scenario, most reasonable people would have been
timid after an interaction like that but unless a threat was made, I am not sure they would
have felt threatened. The big difference here though is Katz was a victim of a previously
mugging.
“Eye for eye, and a tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone
slaps you on the right check, turn to them the other cheek also.”
Matthew
5:38-39 (NIV).
With this verse. God intended to limit the retaliation involved with wrong acts. He is not
necessarily saying to not defend yourself, but he is saying do not retaliate unless
necessary. In this scenario, Katz should not have shot the four youth in their backs. He
may have been fearful that he was going to be mugged again but no threat was presented.
b.
If instead of firing shots, Katz shows the handle of the gun to the four youths in a
threatening manner that suggest he will use it if he is not left alone. One of the youths has
a gun concealed in their jacket and in response to Katz, he pulls out his weapon and
points it at Katz. Katz immediately draws and fires at the youth. In this scenario, Katz
chooses to use deadly force. Some states define deadly force on the basis of the
likelihood that the force will result in death or serious bodily injury.
Id.
at 213. According
to the common law, a person who wished to use force in self-defense must reasonably
fear that the threatened harm is imminent. Something is imminent if it will occur
immediately.
Id.
at 220. A gun being held to you is placing you in imminent danger. The
general rule is that self-defense is measured against necessity. Thus, a victim of a deadly
attack may only use deadly force in self-protection if it reasonably appears necessary.
Id.
at 216. Prosecution could argue that Katz was the aggressor in this situation. He flashed
his gun to the youth which is what triggered the youth to draw his weapon. The whole
point of flashing his weapon was to make a statement and show the youth he is not afraid
to use it if necessary. An aggressor has no right to a claim of self-defense.
Id.
An
“aggressor” has been defined by one court as one whose affirmative unlawful act is
reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences.
Id.
The youth simply asked or demanded money from Katz and his response was to flash his
deadly weapon? Prosecution can argue that the youth felt imminent danger as well which
is why they drew their weapon. The English common law required a reasonable belief in
the necessity of using deadly force in self-defense and one hallmark of this necessity was
the defender’s compliance with the duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force.
Russell L. Weaver, John M. Burkoff, and Catherine Hancock,
Criminal Law A
Contemporary Approach
532 (4
th
ed. 2021). Katz was unable to retreat because he was on
a subway. While those are moving, you cannot open the doors and get away quickly. So,
defense can argue that Katz had no other acceptable response than to draw his weapon.
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”
Luke
11:21
(ESV). There are several bible verses that support self-defense and this being one of
them. But, in this scenario, I am not sure that Katz did not initiate the whole thing. There
is a big difference between someone verbally attacking you and someone drawing a
deadly weapon. Those two actions are not on the same level. “Repay no one evil for evil
but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.”
Romans
12:17 (ESV). After
the gun was drawn on Katz, I do believe he had the right to draw his as well but I do not
believe the youth would have drew a weapon if Katz would not have flashed his.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help