Defenses

Posted: February 21st, 2020

Defenses

Name:

Institution:

Defenses

In the United States, the law provides individuals with the right to enact defenses when faced with situations of mortal danger. Accordingly, individuals are provided with the right to protect themselves with rational force against any entity threatening to impose threatening force. In this respect, various defenses are allowed in most states within the country. Foremost, the right to self-defense allows a person to apply reasonable force in an effort to protect himself or herself in the event that he or she is faced with possible force from another person. Secondly, the justifiable use of deadly force provides a person with the right to utilize lethal force only under situations of tremendous inevitability as a final resort. Lastly, the Stand your Ground law provides an individual with the ability to secure and defend his or her life or organs against perceived or actual threat.

Case Overview

            The concerns regarding the respective defenses raised in criminal law is explored in the situation that befell Alan, Betty, and Charlie. The characters in this particular circumstance had established a long-time camaraderie. In their quest for a ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme, the individuals decided to carry out a plan that would involve the robbery of a local bank. In addition to the severity of the situation, one of the friends, Alan, was mentally impaired based on his decision to stop ingesting his medication. For the robbery, Alan and Charlie were going to utilize fake guns in order to steal $1,000,000 from the bank’s tellers. After the execution, Betty was designated with the role of the getaway driver. In reality though, the plan did not take place accordingly. Due to the presence of fake guns, Charlie was killed by a customer standing in line at the bank. Furthermore, the remaining survivors were arrested for armed and attempted robbery as well as murder.

Application of Defenses

Based on the circumstances surrounding Alan and Betty, the defenses reiterated in this case do not necessarily support them. Foremost, it is possible to assert that the customer, David, acted in self-defense. Generally, a defendant may be allowed to assert a self-defense claim if he or she is accused of committing of an aggressive crime. In this case though, the respective privilege does not apply for Alan and Betty. Accordingly, both persons as well as the casualty (Charlie) expressed the intent to engage in armed robbery. As such, the remaining survivors cannot argue that they acted in self-defense. On the other hand, the right to self-defense protects David from accusations of a violent crime. The law solely justifies the utilization of force when responding to an instant threat. As long as the threat positions the intended victim in instant fear of harm, then it is possible to establish that David was legally correct in shooting Charlie.

Similar to the right to self-defense, the justifiable use of lethal force also works against Alan and Betty. Accordingly, the respective law allows an individual to utilize force in the event that he or she receives a threat on his or her life. For Alan and Betty, the respective right does not apply to them. Foremost, Alan acted as the initial aggressor by initiating a plan to commit violence against the tellers and the customers. As such, the defendant loses the capability of arguing for self-defense. Additionally, the aspect of provocation further supports David’s actions against the defendants. Lastly, the Stand your Ground law allows the individual to defend his or her life against any perceived or actual threat. Since Alan and Betty expressed the intention to rob, they did not have the legal right to be at that specific place.

Conclusion

Alan and Betty are incapable of using the defenses stipulated above. On the other hand, the respective defenses are only applicable to the customer who engaged in the murder of one of the attempted robbers, Charlie. For Alan and Betty, the decision to engage in attempted robbery placed them as the initial aggressors. In addition to this, the defendants utilized fake guns, which acted as tools of threat against the tellers and the customers in general. As an outcome, the defendants suffered a casualty since the customer in question acted in self-defense against the form of perceived threat against his life and that of the tellers and the customers.