I've recently come across this video by Attorney Tommy John Kherkher regarding the subject of using deadly force in self defense. In his video, he presented a checklist of things which are required for a case to be considered self-defense and not murder or manslaughter.
The list is as follows:
- There is a belief of actual, imminent threat of deadly force (grievous bodily harm)
- Belief must be OBJECTIVELY and SUBJECTIVELY reasonable
- Threat is unlawful and immediate
- Must have clean hands
- Confronted with imminent peril
- Force must be immediately necessary
- Response was necessary
- Retreat may be required if:
- Duty to retreat
- There is an entirely safe place to retreat to
- Safe place is known to the person retreating
- Exception: Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground
- Retreat may be required if:
The requirement for a threat to be objectively reasonable is pretty clear: Even if I have an irrational fear of something and that perceived threat seems subjectively reasonable to me, it is generally unreasonable. The example presented was his girlfriend "attacking" him with a purple plush unicorn and him supposedly being deadly afraid of said plush unicorn.
However, the requirement for a threat to be subjectively reasonable isn't obvious to me. If there is an objectively reasonable threat of deadly force (e.g. a stranger pointing a gun at me), why is it necessary to determine if I subjectively believed this to be an imminent danger to me?
Is there an example of a situation in which a threat would be objectively reasonable, but subjectively unreasonable?