Word requirement: 200 words minimum!>>>PLAGIARISM WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED<<< 1. Read the following case study.2. Answer ALL questions by incorporating them into one essay. Use proper paragraphing to include an introduction and conclusion.3. Review NCGS 14-51.2 (located in the attachment below) and base your answers on this statute. The Case Aiken [the Defendant] and the victim had been next-door neighbors in an apartment building for roughly forty years. The two families had a falling out in 1994 or 1995 when a disagreement arose when the victim accused the defendant of siphoning his family?s cable and telephone service. The service providers found no basis for this accusation. In 1997, the victim stabbed Aiken in the back resulting in his hospitalization. The two families continued to live next to one another from 1997 to 1999. This could not have been pleasant because the victim continually ?threatened to shoot, stab or otherwise injure defendant. He made these threats to defendant?s face, to his father and to neighbors?at one point even brandishing a boxcutter.?On December 21, 1999, Aiken and the victim argued through the shared bedroom wall between their apartments. The defendant took a metal pipe and dented his side of the wall. The victim?s mother called the police, and the victim left his apartment to go downstairs and open the building?s front door for the police. The defendant remained inside his apartment, walked to the front door several times, and then opened the door when he saw the victim standing outside his door with a friend. ?Still holding the metal pipe he had earlier used to hit the wall, the defendant then engaged in an angry argument with the victim, who remained in [the defendant?s] doorway.?.?.?.?[H]e [the defendant] continued standing in the doorway, never going into the hall, when the victim reached into his pocket, came up to defendant?s face ?nose to nose,? and said ?he was going to kill? him.?The defendant believed that he was about to be stabbed once again and hit the victim in the head with the metal pipe, killing the victim who collapsed and died in the hallway outside the door.The trial court instructed the jury that ?a person may?.?.?.?not use defensive deadly force if he knows he can with complete safety to himself avoid such use of deadly physical force by retreating.? The trial court refused the defendant?s request to ?charge the jury that, if a defendant is in his home and close proximity of a threshold of his home, there is no duty to retreat.?Review NCGS 14-51.2 (located in the attachment below) and base your answers on this statute. Answer ALL questions by incorporating them into one essay. Do you agree with these jury instructions? Why or why not?Was Aiken in his home for the purposes on the castle doctrine? Did Aiken have the duty to retreat in this particular case? What factors should be examined to determine whether or not the castle doctrine was applicable to this situation? [Consider the key factors in NCGS 14-51.2]Considering the legal equation for self-defense, did Aiken act in self-defense in killing the victim? Why or why not?What factors in this scenario would have to be different in order to afford Aiken a perfect affirmative defense using the castle doctrine?5. Do not forget to spell check and submit to the Safe Assign link.6. Don't forget to include an introductory paragraph and a concluding paragraph.NOTE ABOUT COURT CASES:Even if it is listed as a question, you never need to summarize the facts of any case since the cases are provided for all to read either in the text or within a link. gs_14_51.2.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview § 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm. (a) The following definitions apply in this section: (1) Home. ? A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence. (2) Law enforcement officer. ? Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer. (3) Motor vehicle. ? As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23). (4) Workplace. ? A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes. (b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply: (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances: (1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person. (2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used. (3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. (4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. G.S. 14-51.2 Page 1 (5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. (d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section. (g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.) G.S. 14-51.2 Page 2 ... Purchase answer to see full attachment
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more