First, read the short note on theLangleycase. Then considere your initial post in response to the following prompt:

Apply either the objective or subjective standard to Langley's claim of self-defense. It is your choice whether to apply the objective or the subjective standard. Briefly identify which standard you are applying and explain the evidence the jurors can consider under your chosen standard. Feel free to identify one or two key evidentiary issues rather than providing an exhaustive list.

3.WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

In order to identify and evaluate the difference between the objective and subjective standards, consider the following case.c

In June 1994 in Nashville, Tennessee, Charles Langley shot and killed Harry Woods. At his trial for first-degree murder, Langley argued that the killing was justified because he had acted in self-defense. Just before the killing, Langley and his father were refinishing hardwood floors at a mansion that was undergoing renovation. Woods arrived at the mansion to fix the plumbing; he was accompanied by his son and nephew. Ignoring signs warning them to stay off the floors, the three plumbers walked across a floor that Langley had just finished sanding. Woods's son and Langley exchanged harsh words. Langley picked up a linoleum knife and said that he would cut the plumber's throat if he walked on the floor again. Upon hearing about Langley's threat, Woods became very angry and tried to hit Langley with a lead pipe. The job foreman intervened and separated the men, but Woods managed to kick Langley in the side. Langley went outside the mansion to his truck, retrieved a semiautomatic pistol, and placed the gun in the back of his waistband. He then stood in the yard talking with the job foreman. At this point, Woods came running towards them. Woods was not armed, but he shoved the foreman out of the way in an attempt to get at Langley. Langley opened fire and shot Woods four or five times, with two shots hitting Woods in the back. Langley was 30 years old, stood five feet, six inches tall, and weighed 130 pounds. Woods was 48 years old, six feet tall, and 220 pounds.

Before the trial, Langley was examined by a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist. The experts concluded that Langley was an insecure and usually passive man. He was much more likely than the average person to become frightened quickly when he felt threatened. He felt vulnerable because of his small size and because he was tormented by bullies when he was in school. Langley was not an angry person; if given the chance, he would run away from confrontations. At the time he shot Woods, Langley was scared to death.

What would the result be under the "objective" standard employed by Goetz? Under the "objective" standard described and rejected by the court in Leidholm? Under the "subjective" standard endorsed by Leidholm? In applying these standards, which of the foregoing facts about the confrontation, about Langley, and about Woods would jurors be permitted to consider?