SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

In order for the defense of self-defense to apply, it
must be shown that there existed:
A reasonable belief that the use of force was
necessary to defend oneself against the
immediate use of unlawful force; and
The use of no more force than was
reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4 th 1055,
1065; and see United States v. Biggs (9 th
Cir. 2006) 441 F.3 rd 1069; rejecting the
argument that the defendant must also show
that there were no reasonable alternatives to
the use of force.)
E.g.: An assault by fists does not justify the person
being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in
response unless that person reasonably believes that
the assault is likely to result in the infliction of
death or great bodily injury.
Deadly force is justified only when the apparent
peril is imminent; meaning at the very time of the
deadly response. A threat of future harm does not
legally justify the application of deadly force in
self-defense. (But see “Fleeing Felon,” below.)
“Imminent peril” refers to the situation
which, from all reasonable appearances,
must be instantly dealt with. (People v. Aris
(1989) 215 Cal.App.3 rd 1178, 1187-1188; In
re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4 th 768-783.)
The homicide of the defendant’s grandfather
was not mitigated (which would have
reduced the offense to a voluntary
manslaughter under a “heat of passion”
theory) by the fact that the grandfather had
been overly critical and “mean” to the
defendant in the past. (People v. Kanawyer
(2003) 113 Cal.App.4 th 1233.)
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
A person using a firearm to scare off attacking dogs
may have a viable self-defense argument. (People
117