Many people encounter threats daily and look for a way to properly defend themselves in a law-accepted manner. To solve such conflicts, a person has the right to prevent any harm via self-defense. The extent and the motives qualified as reasonable is a very serious topic of discussion. This essay aims to analyze the lawyer’s plan to defend the person that has committed an act of self-defense and summarize possible positive and negative outcomes of the court hearing.
The defense attorney has a small chance of proving the justification of the defendant’s actions. The victim has walked into the store owned by the defendant and seemed to walk around the isles. The owner was previously robbed on multiple occasions, so he was very cautious and tense. The victim approached the owner with his hand holding something in the pocket. The defendant assumed it to be an attempted assault and shot the customer, who turned out to be holding the phone. To justify an act of self-defense, a proper reasonable motive has to take place. The only way for an attorney to help the defendant is by decreasing the sentence duration.
The owner of the store had nothing but assumptions for his motives. The victim did not express anger or threaten the defendant. The previous store robbings for sure has planted a seed of a doubt, but it has nothing to do with a victim. An attorney’s strategy has to be relying on the reasonable jury members and the judge. His client’s motivations can be justified by a reasonable fear of possible assault (Libraries, n.d., para. 20). The store owner has feared the possible assault and to prevent it he decided to shoot the victim. The problem is that the attorney’s client has overreacted on the situation, and such detail can play a significant role in the hearing result.
The possible court decisions exclude the possibility of avoiding the sentence. The extents of the defendant’s actions far exceed the potential outcome. The jury and the district attorney may point out that even if the victim was planning a robbery, it might not have resulted in the murder of the owner. Of course, if the defendant received threats from the victim, he would have a justifiable reason for self-defense. If the attorney brings up the owner’s previously experienced robberies and his caution about strange visitors, the jury may understand his motives. The outcomes are few: a full sentence for a murder or a reduced sentence. If all the details prove the justification of the defendant’s actions via reasonable fear, the trial may result in a reduction of the sentence. On the other hand, if the attorney fails to make the jury and the judge sympathize with his client, the store owner will receive the full sentence.
The act of self-defense is mostly a tough case to win for any attorney. To justify the client’s actions, the lawyer has to prove that the defendant’s motivation can be subjected to one of the core principles of self-defense. Unfortunately, in the shop owner’s case, a trial will result in a sentence no matter what, the attorney may only affect its duration. This essay aimed to analyze the defense attorney’s strategy for the shop owner’s case and predict the trial’s possible negative and positive outcomes.
Libraries. (n.d.). The University of Minnesota. 2020, Web.