502 F.3d at 269. The Circuit explained that this ruling was based on the officer’s “limited training in law,” and the fact that an on-the-scene analysis of the “ramifications of the statute of limitations defense” would be “too heavy a burden.” Id. In contrast, in Radich, the Circuit held that where a potential arrestee argues, prior to arrest, affirmative defenses that are specifically included in the statute setting forth the elements of the crime, then an officer must act “reasonably ... under the facts and circumstances” k d that “as a matter of law, self-defense is not the type of affirmative defense that officers must consider or disclose in affidavits of probable cause.” Gorman, 947 F.Supp.2d at 523; see also Lue v. Borough of Collingdale, 2015 WL 70931, at *5 (E.D.Pa.2015) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Cuneo, 2012 WL 4926471, at *6
holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under  41412 holding that arkansas would not adopt the approach of reliance to resolve this case holding that the elements of a criminal necessity defense under  951 are the same as the civil privilege defense holding that counsels dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel in the same county were inherently antagonistic and thus created an actual conflict of interest that required disqualification holding that officers are not required to resolve this inherently factbound defense of selfdefense on the scene