FISHER’S DEFENSE

1. FISHER’S DEFENSE Allison Alexander Yahan Derby AJ Klopotoski Matt Januski Rachel Zomerfeld

2. Defendant acted under severe provocation • Darryl’s action represented deep feelings of racism. • Fisher had to face discrimination and live in fear of Darryl. • Fisher was embarrassed in front of his colleagues. • The emotional distress caused by Darryl triggered a reaction from Fisher. • The reaction was not unreasonable due to the meaning behind Darryl’s act.

3. Fisher had no intent to strike Ivana • The intent was transferred when Fisher hit Ivanabut his intent to harm Darryl was directly brought on by Darryl. • Fisher cannot be held entirely responsible for the damages. • Fisher acted in an agitated state and level of provocation was sufficient enough to create this state. • Fisher is not responsible.

4. Fisher felt fear at the time of the incident • In 1967, hate crimes against African American’s were frequent. • Darryl’s action might have been a precursor to something more. • Fisher took action to protect himself from any further damage. • He had legitimate reasons to feel fear. • We must take into account the obstacles African Americans faced at that time as well.