Answer A is incorrect. The other person need not in fact be threatened, but the person who comes to her defense must honestly and reasonably believe that the victim had a right to self-defense. Therefore, the fact that the daughter was not in fact threatened is not dispositive.

Answer C is incorrect. The defendant’s cult membership tends to show the sincerity of his belief that his daughter was in danger, but does nothing to show that this belief would have been held by a reasonable person. An actual belief in the danger is not enough; the belief must be reasonable. Since this belief was not reasonable, the defense is not valid in these circumstances.

Answer D is incorrect. Since this belief was not reasonable, the defendant’s defense of defense of another will not succeed. Moreover, the theory that reflection is not required when there is an imminent threat of death to others is irrelevant. The issue is whether it was reasonable to believe that the danger was imminent. There was in fact no imminent danger of harm in this case.

Most of the US presidents could be seen at one time or another coming from churches carrying bibles and claiming that they believe the crazy stuff that is written in those books. Their beliefs are no less reasonable than the defendant’s.

Therefore, if I were on the jury, I would find him not guilty of murder.

It doesn’t matter anyway; any decent defense attorney will get manslaughter for this guy.