Reasonable Fear of Imminent Danger: Good Social Policy?
Reasonable Fear of Imminent Danger: Good Social Policy?
Givanni Mikel
4324324
LSTD502 I001 Sum 13
Professor James Barney
A sobering fact is that our government has a monopoly on the use of force, but it cannot protect everyone at all times in an immediate fashion. Joel Samaha, Criminal Law, at 155 (11th ed. 2014). Therefore, citizens are permitted to use proportional force in a “self-help” fashion as long as 1. The necessity is great 2. The need exists “right now” 3. The force is used for prevention only. Id, at 155. However, preemptive strikes or retaliation are not justifications for force used in self-defense. Id, at 155. There are also four elements of self-defense: unprovoked attack, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Id, at 156. The first three were alluded to earlier and are fairly self-explanatory, but reasonable belief will be the primary focus in this discussion. This element requires that a defender must have the “reasonable” belief that it’s necessary to use deadly force to neutralize an imminent deadly attack. Id, at 156. However, what is “reasonable fear?” How does it play out in the courtroom? Is the burden on the person using force against an aggressor to show that he or she possessed “reasonable fear?” Does this requirement change whether a person is at home or walking on the sidewalk? Should we presume “reasonable fear” at times or should be look into whether the person using deadly force had a “reasonable” opportunity to retreat and avoid violence? Should we offer civil immunity to those who used deadly force legitimately? Overall, are the recently more aggressive self-defense laws good for public policy? Do they allow those with “itchy” trigger fingers to have a virtual license to kill, or do they take an extra necessary step to put the safety of law-abiding citizens ahead of the concerns of violent law-breakers? Newer self-defense laws, such as the one passed by Florida,
Givanni Mikel
4324324
LSTD502 I001 Sum 13
Professor James Barney
A sobering fact is that our government has a monopoly on the use of force, but it cannot protect everyone at all times in an immediate fashion. Joel Samaha, Criminal Law, at 155 (11th ed. 2014). Therefore, citizens are permitted to use proportional force in a “self-help” fashion as long as 1. The necessity is great 2. The need exists “right now” 3. The force is used for prevention only. Id, at 155. However, preemptive strikes or retaliation are not justifications for force used in self-defense. Id, at 155. There are also four elements of self-defense: unprovoked attack, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Id, at 156. The first three were alluded to earlier and are fairly self-explanatory, but reasonable belief will be the primary focus in this discussion. This element requires that a defender must have the “reasonable” belief that it’s necessary to use deadly force to neutralize an imminent deadly attack. Id, at 156. However, what is “reasonable fear?” How does it play out in the courtroom? Is the burden on the person using force against an aggressor to show that he or she possessed “reasonable fear?” Does this requirement change whether a person is at home or walking on the sidewalk? Should we presume “reasonable fear” at times or should be look into whether the person using deadly force had a “reasonable” opportunity to retreat and avoid violence? Should we offer civil immunity to those who used deadly force legitimately? Overall, are the recently more aggressive self-defense laws good for public policy? Do they allow those with “itchy” trigger fingers to have a virtual license to kill, or do they take an extra necessary step to put the safety of law-abiding citizens ahead of the concerns of violent law-breakers? Newer self-defense laws, such as the one passed by Florida,