Self-Defense Academy Ep. 1: The Parking Lot Confrontation
In self-defense incidents, your quick decisions can affect your safety and legal outcomes. That’s why criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew Marcantel introduce Self-Defense Academy, a new series designed to educate members on self-defense law.
Through thought-provoking hypotheticals, this series explains the legal and practical complexities of self-defense cases. Each scenario serves as a starting point to explore key legal principles, including reasonableness, imminence, proportionality, duty to retreat, and the burden of proof in both criminal and civil cases.
Whether you’re a responsible gun owner, a martial arts enthusiast, or someone who values preparedness, Self-Defense Academy equips you with the knowledge to defend your life and future.
The Hypothetical
The attorneys present the following hypothetical scenario as a case study:
It’s 10 p.m. in a dimly lit parking lot. A man walks toward his car when a stranger of similar build quickly approaches him and demands, “Give me your wallet,” while reaching into his pocket. Fearing for his life and believing the stranger is armed, the man draws his concealed handgun and fires, fatally wounding the stranger. Only afterward does he realize the man was unarmed. He had been pulling out a cell phone. Now, the shooter is charged with second-degree murder and a wrongful death lawsuit.
Reasonableness
The attorneys emphasize that reasonableness is central to all self-defense claims. Although self-defense laws across the United States differ in their specific language and requirements, they all focus on whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable. Reasonableness includes subjective and objective elements, and it is often the jury’s primary focus when deciding the outcome in criminal and civil cases.
• Subjective Test: Did the defendant genuinely believe they faced an immediate threat of death or severe bodily injury?
• Objective Test: Would a reasonable person facing the same incident have shared that belief?
When evaluating a self-defense claim, the jury must consider all available evidence, including witness testimony and expert opinions. If the jury determines that the defendant satisfies both the subjective and objective tests, the defendant would be acquitted of all criminal charges.
In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that the defendant’s use of force was unreasonable. Conversely, in a civil case (such as a wrongful death lawsuit), the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant acted unreasonably. As a result, it is legally possible for a defendant to be acquitted in a criminal trial but still be found liable in a subsequent civil case.
“Reasonableness isn’t an element of self-defense. It’s the ultimate question.”
-Attorney Marc. J Victor
Duty to Retreat and Castle Doctrine
Self-defense laws differ across states, especially regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force. Some states require individuals to retreat if it is safe to do so before resorting to deadly force. Other states, like Arizona and Texas, follow stand-your-ground laws, which remove the duty to retreat if the person is legally present and not involved in criminal activity. Many jurisdictions also recognize the castle doctrine, which eliminates the duty to retreat when a person is in their own home, and sometimes their vehicle or workplace.
Regardless of the jurisdiction, a person who initiates a conflict generally cannot claim self-defense unless they clearly withdraw and show they want to stop the fight. In some cases, if the other person escalates the conflict, certain states may allow the original attacker to defend themselves again. The application of these rules varies by state and is influenced by laws and court decisions.
“In every state that says you have a duty to retreat, the castle doctrine applies, which essentially says there’s an exception to the duty to retreat. You don’t have to retreat if you are in your home… Because your home is your castle.”
-Attorney Marc. J Victor
Imminency and Proportionality of Threat
The legal use of deadly force in self-defense is strictly limited to incidents involving an immediate threat. This means the danger must be imminent and unavoidable. No state allows the use of deadly force in response to a non-imminent or speculative threat. Additionally, the force used must be proportional to the threat received. For example, responding with deadly force to non-lethal physical force, such as a fistfight, is generally considered unjustified. The law distinguishes between two types of force: ordinary physical force and deadly physical force. Ordinary physical force is unlikely to cause death or serious injury, while deadly physical force carries a significant risk of causing serious harm or death.
“There is no jurisdiction in the United States that says you can use deadly physical force on a non-imminent threat.”
-Attorney Andrew Marcantel
When determining if a perceived threat was imminent, some courts and experts may refer to the 21-Foot Rule—a law enforcement training guideline suggesting an attacker armed with a knife can close a 21-foot distance in about 1.5 seconds. Although not a legal standard, it can help assess whether a defender’s perception of danger was reasonable. In the hypothetical scenario, the attorneys state that the defender’s belief that the stranger was about to use deadly force meets the subjective element of self-defense. Plus, factors like the dark setting, the stranger’s aggressive demand, and the act of reaching into a pocket may support the reasonableness of the defender’s belief that an imminent and deadly threat was present. Thus, the defendant’s claim of self-defense is arguable in court.
Threat Versus Discharge of a Firearm
While the law generally permits an individual to threaten or use deadly physical force in self-defense, jurors might question why a defender immediately discharged a firearm instead of issuing a verbal warning or showing the weapon as a deterrent. In response, the defense may call experts on use-of-force to testify that life-threatening incidents can escalate within seconds, leaving no time for warnings or hesitation. They might argue that any delay could have resulted in the defender’s serious injury or death. Conversely, the prosecution could argue that the defender acted too quickly and that the threat did not justify the immediate use of deadly force.
Jurors must determine if the defender’s actions were both immediate and necessary, which often requires difficult judgment. The outcome of these cases depends heavily on facts such as the distance between parties, lighting conditions, availability of video or eyewitness reports, and forensic evidence. These elements together shape the story and influence whether the jury finds the use of deadly force reasonable given the circumstances of the incident.
“So, while question number one, “were you allowed to draw the firearm at that point to defend yourself,” is pretty clear to me, question number two, “were you allowed to discharge it?” is not so clear.”
-Attorney Andrew Marcantel
Mistaken but Reasonable Belief in Self-Defense
Under self-defense law, a defender doesn’t have to be correct about a threat—only reasonably believe there is one. If a person reasonably, even if mistakenly, perceives a threat, the use of force can still be legally justified. The key legal principle is that the mistake must be one a reasonable person could have made in the same situation. In the hypothetical scenario, the defender’s belief that the stranger was reaching for a gun—based on the object’s appearance, the context of the incident, and threatening behavior—may justify deadly force, even if it later turns out that the object was not a weapon.
“If you had a reasonable mistake of fact that this guy was going for a gun, well, it doesn’t matter that you were wrong as long as it was a reasonable belief.”
-Attorney Andrew Marcantel
Conclusion
The attorneys agree that if the defendant has a reasonable jury, the jury might declare his actions justified. However, this is different on the civil side, as the victim’s family may sue for wrongful death. The plaintiff might argue that the defendant did not have to fire his firearm. The attorneys highlight that even if the defendant is acquitted criminally, he might still be found liable civilly unless protected by specific state statutes.
The attorneys emphasize that if the defendant was an Attorneys On Retainer (AOR) member and claimed in good faith that they acted in self-defense, they would represent him on both the criminal and civil sides.
Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm is solely dedicated to representing individuals involved in self-defense incidents through our AOR Program. To learn more about how The AOR Program can protect you, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
