Save Countersignature Justification with airSlate SignNow

Save countersignature justification

the next area that we're going to go over is defenses to crimes again defenses to crimes there are three main categories of defenses to crimes those three main categories of Defense's are number one justification number two excuse and number three mitigation again the three main categories of Defense's to crimes our justification excuse and mitigation so let's go over justification first justification the general rule for justification is the defendant will not be held liable for conduct that is justified a justified action is permitted for protective reasons once again the rule for justification is a defendant will not be held liable for conduct that is justified a justified action is permitted for protective reasons there are five main types of justification let me go over those for you number one is necessity number two self defense number three defense of others number four prevention of crime and number five defense of property I'll say those once again number one necessity to self defense three defense of others for prevention of crime five defense of property now let's go right into necessity necessity the rule of law for necessity is a defendant may assert a defense of necessity when there would be a greater harm so I'm going to give you an example you a and B and C a B and C are rock climbing and there's a horrific accident a B and C are dangling from a rope a and B or on the top and the only way for a and B to be saved is for be to cut C off and let him go because the rope just cannot hold that weight out of necessity to save the two above would be be justified in cutting the rope and letting in basically killing C the answer the question would be yes because he had to kill one to save two once again his defense would be he had to let kill one he had to cut the rope to save two therefore that is the defense of necessary necessity the next one is self defense rule of law is one is justified in using the amount of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent an attack again self defense one is justified in using the amount of force that is reasonably necessary to prevent an attack deadly force under self-defense is only justified when there's a threat of serious bodily injury or death once again you're only justified in using deadly force under self-defense when you are being threatened with serious bodily injury or death there's a split between the common-law and the modern law and I want to go over that with you under the common law which is the minority required that the person tried to attempt to retreat if they were able to before they used deadly force again the common law which is the minority required and attempt to retreat if able before there was use of deadly force the model Penal Code and the majority and what you want to use on the MBE is there's no need to retreat before using deadly force if there's a reasonable risk of death or serious injury which is imminent again under the model Penal Code which is also the majority and what you would want to use on the MBE portion of the bar exam there's no need to retreat if there is a reasonable risk of death or injury is imminent number three defense of others the rule is one is justified to kill if another is in peril of death or injuries so basically you're just coming to the rescue of another it's the same basic rule for self-defense you're justified in using the amount of force that is reasonable under the particular circumstances so you would want to use the reasonable man standard reasonable person standard so there's a majority and minority split here I'm going to discuss that with you the minority says that you step into the shoes of the person who you're defending so let's say for example you come up into an alley and you see a guy holding a gun on another guy and you think he's being robbed and you go and you attack the guy with the gun later to find out that that is a police officer arresting somebody he's not mugging someone he's actually a police officer that is arresting somebody you just went and defended somebody who was being arrested you attacked the police officer the majority rule says you step into the shoes of the person you are defending therefore in that particular circumstances you would not be justified in going after the police officer however the majority and the MBE says that you are allowed a reasonable mistake again for defense of others you are allowed a reasonable mistake moving forward number four under justification is prevention of a crime and we have a split here under prevention of a crime under common law one was justified in using deadly force to stop the commission of a felony once again under common law one was justified to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony however under the model Penal Code which is also the majority and what I want you to use on the MBE the rule of law limits deadly force to eminent public danger and only the police not an ordinary citizen may use deadly force to prevent a crime once again under the model Penal Code the majority and the MBE it limits deadly force to an eminent meaning immediate public danger and only the police not an ordinary citizen can use deadly force to prevent a crime so that is crime prevention number five is defense of property the general rule to defense of property is you may never use deadly force to defend property property of your own property of another again the defense of property general rule is no deadly force is allowed or justify to protect property we do have one exception that exception is when you are in your own home you can't protect yourself in your own home by using deadly force once again the general rule for defensive property is deadly force is not justified to protect your property the one exception is when you are in your own home and you want to look for a burglary so that's the one time that you can use deadly force but it depends the property so once again I'm gonna just go over those quick five justifications to criminal conduct the rule of law is the defendant will not be held liable for contact that is justified for protective reasons and the five justifications are necessity self defense defense of others prevention of crime and defense of property moving on the next category of defenses to crimes is excuses so excuses to criminal conduct there is basically eight types of excuses to criminal conduct those eight types are one insanity to diminished capacity three infancy for intoxication five mistake six duress seven consent and eight entrapment once again insanity diminished capacity infancy intoxication mistake duress consent and entrapment now let's talk about the first one the first one under excuses to criminal conduct insanity there are basically four theories of insanity the four main theories of insanity that you're going to learn are number one is called the McNaughton rule again McNaughton rule that is what's called the right or wrong test number two under the model Penal Code it's called the substantial capacity test so the model Penal Code rule is called the substantial capacity test number three is the irresistible impulse basically the inability to control their selves again irresistible impulse which is the inability to control oneself and the last one number four is the Durham rule let's go into those and discuss them each individually the McNaughton rule which is the common law rule it's also the majority and what you want to follow on the MBE portion of the bar exam it's also known again as the right or wrong test the rule states at the time of the crime defendant had a mental disease so that he did not understand the nature or quality of the act or did not know the act was wrong