Funny you should bring up "deadly force" I was just reading this:
New York State Law: Self-Defense
Self-defense is described in
Article 35 of New York’s Penal Law Code. It is also known as “justification,” and describes when defendants are reasonably “justified” in using physical or
deadly force to defend themselves.
NY Penal Law 35.15 states:
…a person may use physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful] physical force by such individual.
Justification defines non-lethal “physical force” and “deadly force.” It also describes where it can be reasonably asserted to protect:
- themselves or others,
- homes or premises,
- and to prevent criminal mischief.
Justification is proportional, however, and so much depends on reasonable belief. If an unarmed aggressor punched or kicked you, a jury might sympathize if you punched or kicked back;
but if you retaliated with a gun, the jury may believe you reacted disproportionately and unreasonably.
The same can generally be said for retaliating against a verbal threat with physical force. Someone saying they will burn your house down does not constitute an imminent threat and will not make you justified (nor reasonable) in using physical force to harm them.
Assessing imminent danger and retaliation is challenging (and that’s why we have criminal trials) because there are so many factors to consider. Article 35 has been amended and updated several times over the years to address all the variables and will likely continue.
The jury could say that Mr. Alba's reaction was disproportionate to the threat and deem it unreasonable, which would cause him to be convicted, by the way he is charged with:
PL. 125.25 Murder in the second degree (an A felony)
www.nytimes.com
