Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erikrichard
...the whole thing boils down to whether the defendant believed he was in imminent danger of death or severe injury. Given that standard I'm pretty puzzled as to why charges were brought in the first place,...
|
[1] Well Hasman did commit assault. He shot someone, and that is at least assault. His defense will be that he was justified in using lethal force to defend himself.
[2] Given the conflicting evidence, it would not be necessarily be clear to the DA that the use of lethal force was justified according to the applicable legal standard.
[3] It will therefore be up to Hasman to put forth evidence establishing that
prima facie every element necessary to satisfy the legal standard for the use of lethal force in self defense. Those elements, in this jurisdiction under these circumstance, may include the duty to retreat or avoid confrontation if it can be done safely. It looks like Hasman might have some difficulties there.
[4] And note that the standard for the use of lethal force is not, "...the defendant believed he was in imminent danger of death or severe injury..." It's whether a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstance would have believed that.