Questionnaire: Laws concerning self-defense

Please answer the following questions and use article numbers as much as possible.

1. Are there any criminal acts that a person can commit under a legitimate claim of self-defense?
No. The reasonable use of self-defensive is not a criminal act even when the response involves
violence?
2. Can a person legitimately invoke the right to self-defense in response to attacks upon their
honor or reputation? For the purpose of this question, an attack of honor includes anything that
would damage a person’s reputation-this can include physical or verbal attacks, such as rape,
pouring acid upon a person or verbally attacking someone’s reputation.
The right of self-defense in such a situation involving reputation and honor would not include
any act of violence. The appropriate response would be a civil law suit alleging defamation and
requesting monetary damages.
3. Can an act of self-defense legitimately be asserted against a police officer? If the person
claiming self-defense is not aware the aggressor is a police, how does that impact the self-
defense claim?
In theory, you have to the right legally to defend yourself from any physical attack. In reality, a
jury will have difficulty reaching the factual conclusion that the police officer acted without
reasonable cause. If the police officer is undercover then the defender will have a better chance
of claiming a reasonable basis for using physical force.
4. Does a person have the right of self-defense when there is a threat of rape?
Absolutely.
Are there any permissible extenuating circumstances for crimes of passion e.g. discovering a
spouse committing adultery?
Crimes of passion may introduce the question of the state of mind of the aggressor and result in
a charge with a lower degree for the specific crime e.g. spouse #1 returns home and finds
spouse #2 committing adultery with a third-party with spouse #1 reacting violently. The
prosecutor might elect to charge spouse #1 with 2nd degree assault as opposed to 1st degree
assault.
5. Describe the boundaries of a legitimate claim of self-defense where the underlying threat is to
physical property.
When a defendant is on trial for criminal assault or battery, he may argue, in certain instances,
that he reasonably believed that his actions were necessary to defend his property from the
victim. However, the use of force to protect property is much more limited than the right to use
force to protect oneself or other people.
6. Are there limitations on the types of goods for which self-defense is allowed? That is, how does
the law of self-defense differ for personal property and for real property? In what situations can
a person assert defense of others between real property and personal property? Does the victim
of a property crime have to request help for the right to defense of others to arise?
 There is no distinct difference between the law governing self-defense involving property
whether personal or real property. The victim of a property crime need not request help in
order for the right to defense of others be applicable.

7. What are some possible conditions under which the right of self-defense arises?
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering. Force or violence through the use of a
sufficient level of counteracting force or violence this definition is simple enough on its face, but
it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. For instance, what is a sufficient level
of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the
intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible?
What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually
exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively
unreasonable?
8. What does proportionality mean in connection with self-defense?
Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other
words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat
involves deadly force, the person defending himself or herself can use deadly force to
counteract in the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person
claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of
self-defense will fail.
9. What is the definition of necessity in connection with self-defense?
I’m not aware of the necessity being a separate standard in the law pertaining to self-defensive.
10. What crimes or threat of a crime can trigger the right to self-defense?
It’s a universally accepted principle that a person may protect themselves from harm under
appropriate circumstances, even when that behavior would normally constitute a crime. In the
united states legal system, each state allows a defendant to claim self-defense when accused of
a violent crime, as does the federal government.
11. Under what kind of circumstances does a person have an obligation to retreat from acting in
self-defense? If instead the person chooses to commit an act of aggression in self-defense, when
does that act constitute permissible self-defense?
The original laws regarding self-defense required people claiming self-defense to first make an
attempt to avoid the violence before using force. This is also known as duty to retreat while
most states have removed this rule for instances involving the use of nonlethal force, many
states still require that a person make an attempt to escape the situation before applying lethal
force.
12. What is the definition of imminent danger?
As general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an
immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an
immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of
immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. Moreover,
the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once threat ended. For example, if an
aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any
 threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against
the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.
13. Do you consider the conditions for self-defense contained in current US law sufficient? Should
the law be amended to add further conditions? If so, what conditions? Are the conditions for
permissible self-defense practical and realistic?
See section 13 below.

14. What problems do you see in the current US law of self-defense? Where do courts reject claims
for self-defense that you believe should be accepted as legitimate? What are your suggestions
for solutions to improve the legal procedures and laws on self-defense?
I would remove the stand your ground rule. In contrast the duty to retreat many states have
enacted so called stand your ground laws. These laws remove the duty to retreat and allow for a
claim of self-defense even if the claimant did nothing to flee from the threat of violence. This is
the more common rule when situations involve nonlethal force. State self-defense laws are split
on the stand your ground principle when lethal force is in play.

15. Is self-defense a right or an obligation?

It is a right.
16. If the conditions for self-defense are increased, would this benefit or harm the legal system?
The legal system is not harmed provided the conditions for self-defensive are perceived as being
fair and reasonable.