The case scenario involves Don, an entrepreneur who owns the Don’s Market in the central city for twelve years. The state has adopted the new “shoot the burglar,” which provides for the lawful defense with the use of deadly force for any citizen faced with intrusion by a burglar. Ultimately, Don was charged with assault and battery due to the events occurring during his defending attempt against the group of intruders, where he used a fire gun against a police officer. It is crucial to analyze the case to understand whether Don committed a crime or was charged unfairly. An assault and battery charge received by Don typically refers to both threats of bodily harm and the actual following through with physical contact (Lippman, 2016). It is evident that the defending system created by Don and set up at the market was a dangerous construction that served as a threat to any person that would enter the store building.
Don should have considered that the police could investigate the market at night in order to control the marketplace. Don’s defense was not well-thought-out because it could harm any person entering the market. Therefore, a market’s owner lacked the criminal intent for the committed assault. If Don engaged in an unjustified violation, given that his victim ended up being a police officer is not a defense to assault charge. The self and property defense excused the use of deadly force in case of an imminent threat to the victim. However, given that Don was not at the store defending himself at the time of the committed shooting, harm to the market’s owner was not imminent, excluding any risk to Don’s life. Finally, it is critical to analyze the mistake of the shoot-the-burglar law, which expands to defending one’s residence. The defense can be justified in the case when Don’s grocery store is proved to be his residence. The exception may be argued concerning that the Model Penal Code anticipates a mistake of law implemented in reasonable dependence upon an official in case of an incorrect statement of law provided by the police officer. It is an ambiguous defense because even though the officer informed Don about the new law, there is no indication that he mentioned its application to one’s residence.
Reference
Lippman, M. (2016). Essential criminal law. SAGE Publications.