Is A privileged to use reasonable force to prevent B from striking C, given that B is entitled to strike in self-defense?

The correct answer is that A is privileged to use reasonable force to prevent B from striking C. This principle stems from the idea of intervening to prevent harm to another person. A's action is justified because it aligns with the rights to protect someone from an imminent threat of violence.

In tort law, the privilege to use reasonable force in defense of a third party holds if the person intervening (A in this case) reasonably believes that the third party (C) is in danger of being harmed by an aggressor (B). Even though B may be entitled to strike in self-defense, A’s intervention is permissible if A believes it is necessary to prevent a physical confrontation between B and C. This is considering A's reasonable perception of the situation and acting with the intent to protect C.

While it might be tempting to think that A's belief about who the aggressor is could undermine the privilege, it's important to note that reasonable force is evaluated based on the circumstances as they appear to A. If A believes that C is in danger, then A can act accordingly, regardless of B's self-defense claim.

The other options do not capture the essence of the protective privilege afforded to intervenors in situations of potential harm. The focus remains on A