united-states self-defense
Why is it necessary for a belief of imminent deadly force to be subjectively reasonable?
<p>I've recently come across <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcuKdalW2uM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this video</a> 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.</p>
<p>The list is as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>There is a belief of actual, imminent threat of deadly force (grievous bodily harm)
<ul>
<li>Belief must be OBJECTIVELY and <strong>SUBJECTIVELY</strong> reasonable</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Threat is unlawful and immediate
<ul>
<li>Must have clean hands</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Confronted with imminent peril
<ul>
<li>Force must be immediately necessary</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Response was necessary
<ul>
<li>Retreat may be required if:
<ul>
<li>Duty to retreat</li>
<li>There is an entirely safe place to retreat to</li>
<li>Safe place is known to the person retreating
<ul>
<li>Exception: Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
<p>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 &quot;attacking&quot; him with a purple plush unicorn and him supposedly being deadly afraid of said plush unicorn.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>Is there an example of a situation in which a threat would be objectively reasonable, but subjectively unreasonable?</p>

<h2>Because your buddy routinely points loaded firearms at you</h2>
<p>First, you should probably get friends who don’t do this but, even though this is objectively a threat, you know that you are in no danger (barring accidents). Self-defence is not justified.</p>
<p>This is why there is the dual requirement that the danger is clear to both:</p>
<ul>
<li>an objective observer, and</li>
<li>the person under threat.</li>
</ul>
