Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with murder based on the following facts: Defendant, previously a victim of an armed robbery, armed himself with a handgun. While riding on the subway, Defendant was approached by a panhandler who asked him for money. Defendant pulled out his handgun and shot the panhandler, who died instantly. At trial, Defendant introduced evidence of his prior experience as a robbery victim, which according to Defendant, made him believe that he was in danger when the panhandler approached him. Defense counsel has proposed the following jury instruction on the relevance of Defendant's past experience: "you should acquit the defendant if you find that the defendant's belief that he needed to use force to repel a robbery was reasonable to him based on all of the circumstances."

Which of the following best describes whether the trial court should instruct the jury as requested by Defendant?

	A.	The court should instruct the jury consistent with Defendant's proposed instruction.The instruction states the applicable law governing self-defense.
	B.	The court should not instruct the jury consistent with Defendant's proposed instruction.The instruction makes the test subjective rather than objective.
	C.	The court should instruct the jury consistent with Defendant's proposed instruction only if the record includes evidence that the panhandler was armed and intended to harm Defendant.
	D.	The court should instruct the jury consistent with Defendant's proposed instruction if the events took place in a state that does not require someone to retreat before using deadly force.