Upon the law of self-defense, you are instructed that a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
The use of force against another is not justified:
(1)in response to verbal provocation alone; or
(2)to resist an arrest or search that the defendant knows is being made by a peace officer, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified.
The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1)if, before the defendant offers any resistance, the peace officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2)when and to the degree the defendant reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1)if he would be justified in using force in the first place, as hereinbefore explained
(2)if a reasonable person in his situation would not have retreated, and
(3)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
If, before a person offers any resistance, the peace officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, such person being arrested may defend himself with force that he easonably believes to be immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's use or attempted use of unlawful force, provided he used only such degree of force as he reasonably believed necessary to protect himself against such officer's unlawful force, and no more.
If such person would be justified in using force against the peace officer to protect himself against the officer's use or attempted use of force greater than necessary, then, such person would have a right to use deadly force against such unlawful deadly force against him, provided he used only such degree of deadly force as he reasonably believed to be necessary to protect against the officer's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
In determining whether a defendant acted in self-defense against the use of deadly force greater than necessary by a peace officer making an arrest, the jury should place itself in the defendant's place and view the facts and circumstances from his standpoint at the time; and if it reasonably appeared to him that his life or person was in danger from the use of unlawful deadly force by the peace officer, even though such danger may have been apparent and not real, he would have a right to defend his life and person as fully and to the same extent as he would had the danger been real, provided he acted upon a reasonable apprehension of danger as it appeared to him from his standpoint at the time, and that he reasonably believed such force was immediately necessary to protect himself against the officer's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.
In determining the existence of real or apparent danger, it is your duty also to consider all of the facts and circumstances in evidence in the case, and consider the words, acts, and conduct, if any, of the officer at the time and prior to the time of the alleged offense, and in considering such circumstances, you should place yourselves in the defendant's position at that time and view them from his standpoint alone.
By the term "reasonable belief" as used herein is meant a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant.
By the term "deadly force" is meant force that is intended or known by the persons using it to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
Therefore, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant, «DEFENDANT1», did shoot (COMPLAINANT) with a firearm, as alleged, and you further find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that (COMPLAINANT) was attempting to arrest the defendant, but you further find from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that prior to the defendant's offering any resistance, it reasonably appeared to the defendant, viewed from his standpoint at the time that (COMPLAINANT) was using or attempting to use more force than was reasonably necessary to arrest the defendant and that there was created in his mind a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury from unlawful deadly force at the hand of (COMPLAINANT), and that, acting under such apprehension, and reasonably believing that the use of deadly force on his part was immediately necessary to protect himself against such deadly force, he shot (COMPLAINANT) with a firearm, then you should acquit the defendant on the grounds of self-defense; or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was so acting in self-defense on said occasion under said circumstances, then you should give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty.
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time and on the occasion in question, the defendant did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury as the result of the use of unlawful deadly force by (COMPLAINANT), viewing all the facts and circumstances from the defendant's standpoint at the time, then you will find against the defendant on the issue of self-defense.