Practice question
An aggressor’s attack has definitively ended, he is disarmed and poses no continuing or imminent unlawful aggression. The former defender then injures him solely in retaliation. The actor invokes ordinary self-defense based only on the earlier attack. Which is best?
- Every earlier attack justifies unlimited later retaliation
- The absence of ongoing or imminent unlawful aggression defeats the asserted ordinary self-defense on these stipulated facts
- Retaliation is always a statutory duty
- Past fear automatically supplies every requisite forever
- The actor may choose the legal result
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code Article11(1): https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.