As you can imagine, the determination of reasnability is very situation-based. So, for example, if someone throws a punch at you, you can't shoot him. You may only use deadly force when you reasonably fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. A person can only use the level of force reasonably needed to prevent a harm. There is a distinction between deadly and non-deadly force, but again the concept of reasonabilty leads us to the idea of proportionality of force. This means that you as the defendant must prove that the homicide/battery you committed falls within the self-defense justification. Killing self-defense is still killing, and self-defense is sometimes called a justifiable homicide. It's not about creating vigilantes to stop crime.
However, this isn't a license to kill or hurt whenever you feel like it. Many factors will affect that determination, but that's the core concept. This is the guiding principle of self-defense law: whether your use of force was a reasonable one. The law will usually be something along the lines of allowing the use of the minimum amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent imminent bodily harm given the circumstances. I'm going to discuss them in broad terms because there are some basic concepts underlying all such laws, but the laws in your jurisdiction may be very different than that of another.įirst, in the US every jurisdiction has some variation of self-dense.
Please keep in mind that self-defense laws are state laws.
I'm seeing some really bizarre and wrongheaded ideas being tossed around. There's some confusion in this thread I thought I'd clear up. Attorney here (went to law school in Texas, licensed in NY).
0 kommentar(er)
