In crime education, we often discuss the blurred line between self-defense and retaliation in the event of an attack. The case will now be at the heart of a criminal charge against former Broncos defender Brendan Langley, who has been charged with assault after hitting a United Airlines employee. A partial video of the incident shows how blurred the line is in the use of self-defense. If this charge is a sign, it can literally make a difference in a few seconds.
Langley was arrested on Thursday after allegedly clashing with a United Airlines employee at Liberty Newark International Airport.
This video, which does not show how the fight started, shows the United employee throwing the first punch. The employee was reportedly fired. However, it was Langley who was arrested.
If the video is a complete recording of the physical part of the conflict, it appears that the employee was the original aggressor. Langley has the right to defend himself when he hits. However, there is a slight delay before Langley comes forward to hit the employee. Police may base the charge on the fact that Langley appeared to be chasing the employee.
In New Jersey, an attack is defined as follows:
2C: 12-1 attack.
2C: 12-1. Attack a. A simple individual attack is the culprit of rape if:
(1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or unknowingly causes bodily harm to another. Or
(2) Negligence harms another with a deadly weapon. Or
(3) Attempting to physically threaten another to intimidate another into serious imminent bodily harm.
Simple rape is a disorderly crime, unless it is committed in a fight or quarrel with the consent of the parties, in which case it is a violation of disorderly conduct.
There is no doubt that lameness causes bodily harm, but what about self-defense or self-defense? As defined below under New Jersey law. Langley can clearly argue that he “logically believes[d] “Such a force is immediately necessary to protect oneself from the use of illegal force by another person in the present situation.”
Many exceptions to the use of security force are related to attacking the house or using lethal force. However, the law also states that, with the exception of a few restrictive articles, “a person who uses security forces may, in the event of the use of force, consider the necessity of the use of force without retreat, surrender of possession, or any other act unlawful.” . “Obligation to perform or refrain from any legal action.”
Returning to the videotape, Langley may have been hit first, and the employee repeatedly moves forward to engage Langley again. Clearly, Langley could have retreated, but it seems that Georgia law only sets the task of retreating in the use of deadly force.
Police may argue that because of the separation before Langley’s response, there was no reasonable belief that coercion was necessary. The fact that this was against an employee at an airport was probably also heavy. However, it is difficult to understand why, if this video shows the first hit, the employee is not charged. In any case, if he is going to go to jury, a case will lead to a messy lawsuit.
2C: 3-4 Use force to protect yourself.
2C: 3-4. Use of force in self-defense a. Use justifiable force to protect the person. According to the provisions of this section and Section 2C: 3-9, the use of force or against another person is justified when the agent reasonably believes that such a force is immediately necessary in order to protect himself from the use of illegal force. Is. By such another person on the occasion.
B) Limitations in justifying the necessity of using force.
(1) The use of force in this section is not justified:
(A) Resist the arrest that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the course of his or her duties, even though the arrest is illegal, unless the peacekeeper uses illegal force to carry out such an arrest. Or
(B) To resist force used by the possessor or holder of property or another person, if the perpetrator knows that the person using force is doing so under the pretext of claiming protection of the property. , Except that this restriction should not apply if:
(i) An actor is a public officer who performs his or her duties or is a person who is legally assisting him or her or a person who is under legal arrest or assistance.
(ii) the actor has been unlawfully expropriated and is being re-entered or reclaimed as justified by Section 2C: 3-6. Or
(iii) The actor logically believes that such a force is necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury.
(2) The use of lethal force under this section is not justified unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury. Also not justified if:
A) The actor incited the use of force against himself in order to cause death or serious bodily injury in the same encounter. Or
(B) The actor knows that he can avoid the need to use such force with complete security by withdrawing or transferring ownership of something to the person to whom he claims a right, or by complying with a request to refrain from any action he takes. He has no duty except:
I) The actor is not obliged to withdraw from his home, unless he is the primary aggressor. And
(ii) A public officer who is justified in the use of force in the performance of his duties, or a person who is justified in aiding or abetting the use of force, or a person who is justified in arresting or preventing his escape, shall not be obliged to give up. To perform such a task, to arrest or deter such a fugitive because of resistance or resistance threatened by or by the person against whom such an action is taken.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, a person who uses security forces may, in the event of the use of force, without retreat, surrender his property, perform any other act which he performs, the necessity of using Estimate the force. There is no legal obligation to take or refrain from any legal action.
C (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of NJS2C: 3-5, NJS2C: 3-9, or this section, the use of force or lethal force on or against an aggressor who is illegally in a house is justified when the actor It is reasonable to believe that force is immediately necessary to protect oneself or others in the home from the use of unlawful force by the aggressor in the present situation.
(2) There is a reasonable belief when the actor, in order to protect himself or a third party, was at home at the time of the crime or was privileged to be there, and the confrontation between the actor and the aggressor was sudden, unexpected and convincing. The actor should play immediately and:
(A) The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would cause personal harm to the actor or others in the house. Or
(B) The actor demanded that the aggressor disarm, surrender or retreat, and the aggressor refused to do so.
(3) An agent who uses a protective force may, in the event of the use of force, consider the necessity of the use of force, without retreat, surrender, seizure or any other act which he has no legal duty to perform or refrain from any legal action. Slowly
L.1978, c.95; Revised 1987, vol.120, p.1; 1999, c.73.