Baton Strikes at a Convenience Store: Self-Defense or Excessive Defense?
At 02:10 on a winter night, Officer B (7 years of service) responds alone to a convenience store in a commercial district. A man, A (31), has smashed the store's glass door with a soju bottle and is advancing toward a 19-year-old clerk while shouting that he will 'kill' her. B stands about three meters away, identifies himself, and orders A to drop the bottle. A turns toward B but keeps the broken bottle in his hand. B draws a 60 cm baton, warns once, and strikes A's right thigh. A takes two more steps; B strikes A's left forearm. A falls, and the bottle rolls away. A suffers a fractured wrist and a thigh contusion. B did not activate his body camera; the store's CCTV covers only the entrance. A's lawyer argues that B used excessive force because A was intoxicated and not moving quickly. B says he feared A would reach the clerk.
1. Evaluate whether B's baton strikes can be justified under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, separating the requirements of a current unlawful infringement, defensive intent, and the means used.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act, self-defense requires (i) a current and unlawful infringement of one's own or another's legal interest, (ii) defensive intent, and (iii) a defense that is reasonable in the circumstances. The test is not whether A was drunk or slow, but whether a reasonable person in B's position would have seen an imminent threat.
Application. A had just smashed glass and threatened to kill the clerk while holding a broken bottle. When he turned toward B and kept the bottle, the infringement was current; B's purpose was to protect the clerk and himself, so defensive intent is present. The first strike to the thigh after a warning is the easiest to justify: it targeted a large muscle, stopped forward movement, and followed a verbal order. The second strike is closer. A had taken two more steps, but B must show why a lesser response-retreat, a second warning, hand control, or waiting for backup-was not feasible. B was alone, three meters away, and the clerk was behind him. The wrist fracture matters but is not decisive; courts look at the totality, including the number and force of blows, the body part, the duration, the alternatives, and police training.
Conclusion. The first blow is likely justified. The second may be justified, but if the court finds it went beyond the necessary minimum, it becomes excessive defense rather than ordinary self-defense. Intoxication does not by itself remove the threat.
2. If the prosecution charges B with causing bodily injury, what facts determine whether the act is excessive defense rather than ordinary self-defense, and what is the legal effect?
Read the worked answer
Excessive defense is not the same as mistaken defense. The infringement and defensive intent remain; the actor exceeds the reasonable-grounds limit. The key facts are the second blow, the fracture, the distance, the availability of alternatives, and B's state of mind. If B deliberately continued to punish A after the bottle was no longer a threat, that is not excessive defense but retaliation. If B honestly but unreasonably believed more force was needed, that is mistaken defense, which is analyzed differently. If the excess was due to fear, panic, or confusion in a night-time or otherwise uneasy situation, Article 21(3) may exempt punishment; otherwise Article 21(2) allows mitigation or exemption. The legal effect is not automatic acquittal: justification removes unlawfulness, while excessive defense only affects punishment. Civil liability and disciplinary liability can still follow. B's report should therefore separate what he perceived at each moment from the legal label.
3. What should B's incident report include and avoid, given the missing body camera?
Read the worked answer
Include a minute-by-minute timeline: 02:10 arrival, distance, lighting, A's words, the warning, each strike, A's movement after each strike, and when the bottle left his hand. Record the clerk's position and any exit route. Explain why B chose the baton and why he struck the thigh first and the forearm second. Preserve the CCTV, the baton, B's uniform, and medical records; identify the clerk and any bystanders. Document the body-camera issue factually: whether it was off, malfunctioning, or not activated, and who checked it. Do not write 'A was just drunk' or 'I had no choice,' and do not state a legal conclusion such as 'this was self-defense.' Those phrases invite credibility attacks. Instead, write observations that a court can test. Notify a supervisor and complete the use-of-force report under department policy. If the body camera was off, check the policy and training record; do not reconstruct missing footage.