Answer: In this scenario, Mr. Peters may argue that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense is a legal defense that allows an individual to use reasonable force in order to protect themselves from an imminent threat of harm. However, whether Mr. Peters's actions were reasonable under the circumstances could be debated.
A key factor that may be considered is whether Mr. Peters had a reasonable belief that Takeshi posed an imminent threat of harm to him. Mr. Peters may argue that he was scared and believed that Takeshi was an intruder, based on the fact that Takeshi was yelling and waving his arms. However, the fact that Takeshi did not understand English, and was not responding to Mr. Peters's commands may indicate that Mr. Peters should have realized that Takeshi was not an immediate threat.
Another important factor that may be considered is whether Mr. Peters's use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. In this case, it could be argued that shooting Takeshi was not a reasonable response, as there may have been other options that Mr. Peters could have taken to protect himself, such as calling the police or using non-lethal force.
In general, whether Mr. Peters has a defense will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and how these facts are presented and evaluated in court.
Step-by-step explanation: