Self Defense
A D is excused from liability resulting from D’s use of reasonable force necessary to prevent harmful or offensive contact, confinement, or imprisonment;where D reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent an imminent threat of injury to D person. As an affirmative defense, D has the burden to prove these elements by a preponderance of the evidence
REASONABLE BELIEF / REASONABLY NECESSARY RULE + APPS
An individual may respond to threatened harm they reasonably believe —even if mistakenly—believe necessary to prevent harm to themselves. It is applied as an objective standard and therefore ignores any particular sensitivities or paranoia unique to D.
DEGREE OF FORCE RULE + APPS
The degree of force used by D must be reasonably necessary to prevent the threatened harm under the circumstances At common law, deadly force used in self-defense of one’s person is justified only where D is threatened with serious bodily injury or death and D issues a verbal demand for the person to desist then retreats before use of deadly force. Even if D is in their own home, D can only use deadly force to repel an invader when they reasonably believe the invader threatens harm to D or other persons in D’s home. However, where D reasonably believes demand and retreat would expose them to greater threat of injury or death due to the delay in the face of imminence, no such demand and/or retreat is necessary
Defense of recapture
The priviledge of an owner, employee, or agent dispossessed of a chattel to use force to recapture. they must have probale cuase and D must act reasonbly under the circumstances.
Reasonable recapture
D must act reasonably under the circumstances ( verbal demand, manner of detention/ severity of force or threat or duration.)
Hot pursuit (Reasonable Time)
D time of pursuit is limited to bring about discovery of the dispossession of the chattel. The pursuit must happen immideatly and in close poximity to the premises.
Public Necessity
A public offical may claim public necessity as a privilege against intentional T liability; 2. D offical must prove the interference w/Ps land or property was justified by an actual apparent necessity such that the individual harm to P is outweighed by the greater harm to the public risk of inaction.
Private Necessity
Private Necessity appies where D’s interference with the land or property of another is:, Harm to P posed by interference outwieghed by greater harm to D, D’s property, or that of 3rd person(s) from inaction; and No less-damaging alternative adequate to prevent the harm exisited. 3. But private necessity shields a D ONLY from nominal and punitive Not compensatory —damages. (SF Fire Case)
Lawful Authority
(in the abscence of a valid warrant) or person lawfully conducting “citizens arrest” of P is excused from intentional T liability by reason of authority of law where: 1. P commits felony (or misdemeanor invlovling breach of peace) ;2. In D’s presecence; AND 3. D uses only the degree of force reasonably necessary to prevent and/or apprehend P.
Discipline
A D is priv;eged against intentional T liablity on the grounds of disciplinary authority if: 1. D has a special duty to maintain disicpline /order (e.g., parent, teacher, military) AND 2. Uses only a degree of force reasonably necessary to maintain level of discipline / order required under the circumstances.
