Final answer:
Jill's claim of self-defense for killing Jerry, who threatened her with future harm, would likely be invalid in court due to the absence of immediacy, proportionality, and necessity. Self-defense requires an immediate and proportional response to an actual threat. Multiple constitutional amendments provide protections that inform these assessments.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the scenario where Jerry threatens Jill and Jill responds by fatally shooting Jerry, the validity of self-defense as a legal defense for Jill's actions would likely not hold in court. Self-defense generally requires an immediate threat to one's safety. Jerry's statement about future intent to harm does not constitute an immediate threat to which lethal force could be considered a proportionate response. The self-defense claim must align with the principle of immediacy in threat, proportionality in response, and necessity of action, all of which are absent in Jill's preemptive action based on a future threat.
In the gun shop counterexample, the shop owner may have a moral responsibility for selling Joe a weapon and ammunition despite knowing of Joe's intent to harm others, but this example does not directly correlate with the immediate defense scenario posed by Jill and Jerry.
For the additional criminal law scenarios provided, the correct application of constitutional amendments is crucial to evaluate whether the actions described are lawful or not. This involves understanding the rightful protections under constitutional amendments such as the right to an attorney, a fair trial, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.