United States v. Peterson
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (1973)
Defendant: Peterson; the defendant saw the deceased, Keitt, and two others stealing windshield wipers from his wrecked car. The defendant went out to confront the three men and there was a verbal exchange. The defendant came back to his house and armed hiself. Just as Keitt and the other men were about to leave, the defendant went out of his house and pointed his gun at the men and ordered them not to move. Keitt came at the defendant with a lug wrench and the defendant shot and killed Keitt. The trial court found the defendant as the aggressor and the jury convicted the defendant. Now the defendant appeals and argues that he shot Keitt out of self-defense. Issue: Shold the defense of self-defense be accepted under the given facts? Holding: No Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that the the intial confrontation ended when Keitt and the other men sat in their car and were about to leave. But then defendant started a new confrontation when he came out of his house with a gun and challenged Keitt. The court ruled that when a person provokes or is the intial aggressor, he can not later claim his actions to be taken under self defense. The court further stated that if a person withdraws from the original confrontation and lets his opponents know about it through words or actions, then he is no longer the aggressor. The court ruled that the defendant knew that by going out with a gun, he was going to put himself and others in great harm and his actions clearly made him the aggressor. The conviction was affirmed.
People v. Goetz Relevant Facts: Four youths boarded a subway train in the Bronx and headed toward Manhattan. Two of them had screwdrivers in the coats, reportedly to break into video machines. Df boarded the same train. He carried an illegal handgun in his waistband. One or two of the youths approached df and demanded five dollars from him. Df stood up, produced the gun and began shooting. He fired four times in rapid succession, striking three of the youths. Then he fired another shot at the first youth who approached him. This bullet severed his spinal cord. Df made two statement to the police when he turned himself in nine days later. He claimed he was certain none of the youths had a
gun, but based his acts on the fear of previous experiences being maimed. He stated his intent was to murder, to hurt them, to make them suffer as much as possible. Legal Issue(s): Whether a person must reasonably believe that the use of deadly force is necessary before its implementation? Court’s Holding: Unclear remanded. Procedure: 3 Grand Jury indictments for attempted murder, assault, lower ct. dismissed the attempted murder, assault, and weapons possession charges. Reversed and reinstate all charges with instructions for petit jury trial. Law or Rule(s): A person may use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or another from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. A person may not use deadly force upon another under circumstances specified unless he reasonably believes that such person is using or about to use deadly physical force or he reasonably believes that the other is committing or attempting to commit a kidnaping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, or robbery. Court Rationale: Penal law of the state allows the use of physical force only where requirements as to triggering conditions and the necessity of a particular response are met. It requires the actor to “reasonably believe,” that another is using or about to use deadly force or is committing or attempting to commit enumerated felonies. As to the need for the use as a response the actor must “reasonably believe,” such force is necessary to avert. The legislative intent retained a reasonableness requirement to avoid the df’s perceptions as the only standard to use as a determination. The basis for reasonableness is the circumstances facing a df or his situation. Including the relevant knowledge about the assailant; physical attributes of all persons involved; any prior experiences;, on these factors the jury should decide. Plaintiff’s Argument: Under the circumstances the conduct of the df were inconsistent with a reasonable man similarly situated. Defendant’s Argument: Df actions, based on prior experiences, and the circumstances under which the events occurred were reasonable and necessary.