Also known as: self-defense · selfdefence · self defense · self-defences · self-defenses
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A privilege to use reasonable force, not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to defend against unprivileged harmful or offensive contact that the actor reasonably believes another is about to inflict intentionally. The privilege remains available even if the actor could avoid the necessity of defending by retreating or complying with a command. Force exceeding what the actor correctly or reasonably believes necessary is not privileged.
An individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense within the home. A total ban on handgun possession in the home or requirements that firearms be rendered inoperable for immediate self-defense violate this right.
An exception to the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality rules that permits a law firm to obtain and use client communications and work product necessary to defend itself against the client's allegations of overbilling or inadequate representation.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A privilege to use reasonable force, not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to defend against unprivileged harmful or offensive contact that the actor reasonably believes another is about to inflict intentionally. The privilege remains available even if the actor could avoid the necessity of defending by retreating or complying with a command. Force exceeding what the actor correctly or reasonably believes necessary is not privileged.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Samantha Stone returns home to find an intruder in her kitchen. She honestly but unreasonably believes the man is about to stab her with a knife and shoots him, causing death. At trial the jury finds Stone's belief in the need for deadly force was mistaken yet sincere. The court instructs the jury that this honest but unreasonable belief can reduce the offense from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Samuel Soto is confronted on a public sidewalk by an aggressor who advances with fists raised. Soto could safely step backward into a nearby store but instead stands his ground and pushes the aggressor away with open hands. The aggressor falls, strikes his head, and later sues Soto for battery. Soto asserts self-defense, and the court holds that he was not required to retreat even though retreat was possible.
Sasha Stone is slapped once on the arm during an argument. She responds by striking the other person repeatedly with a metal flashlight, causing serious injury. The other person sues for battery. Stone claims self-defense. The court finds that the repeated blows with a weapon exceeded the force she reasonably believed necessary to protect herself from the single slap.
No. Self-defense remains privileged even when the actor correctly or reasonably believes retreat or compliance with a command would avoid the need to defend. The privilege is not lost merely because the actor could have given up a right or privilege instead of using force.
Supporting sources
In some jurisdictions an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary in self-defense mitigates what would otherwise be murder to voluntary manslaughter. The belief must be sincere even though it fails the objective reasonableness test.
Supporting sources
An individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense within the home. A total ban on handgun possession in the home or requirements that firearms be rendered inoperable for immediate self-defense violate this right.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sophia Singh lives in a city that prohibits all handgun possession inside residences and requires any permitted long guns to be stored with trigger locks. After a series of home invasions in her neighborhood, Singh keeps an unlocked handgun in her nightstand for protection. When police discover the weapon during a welfare check, they charge her under the ordinance. Singh moves to dismiss, arguing the restrictions prevent her from using the firearm for immediate self-defense in her home.
Yes. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home. A total ban on handgun possession in the home or requirements that firearms be rendered inoperable for immediate self-defense are unconstitutional.
Supporting sources
An exception to the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality rules that permits a law firm to obtain and use client communications and work product necessary to defend itself against the client's allegations of overbilling or inadequate representation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sydney Santos sues her former law firm for overbilling and inadequate representation in a contract dispute. The firm seeks to introduce Santos's own emails and discovery responses that show she approved the billing and directed the strategy. Santos moves to strike the documents under attorney-client privilege. The court denies the motion, allowing the firm to use the materials to defend against the claims Santos placed at issue.
Yes. The self-defense exception to attorney-client privilege permits a firm to use client communications and work product necessary to defend itself when the client has placed the representation at issue by alleging overbilling or inadequate representation.
Supporting sources
…then obtained the admission of shooting, the interrogator is advised to refer to circumstantial evidence which negates the self-defense explanation. This should enable him to secure the entire story. One text notes that "Even if he fails to do so, the inconsistency between the subject's original denial of the shooting and…
…432 U.S. 233 (1977), we rejected that interpretation. We there held that the burden of proof as to the affirmative defense of self-defense
…malice. Indeed, the want of sound memory repels the proof of malice in the same way as proof that the killing was accidental, in self-defence, or in heat of blood; and there can be no solid distinction founded upon the fact that the law presumes the existence of a sound memory. So the law infers malice from the killing when that…
…should sail for the purpose of making hostile captures, she might be dealt with as a pirate, if she made any captures except in self-defence. But this he expressly grounds upon the municipal edicts of his own country in relation to captures made by its own subjects. And he says, every declaration of war not only permits but…
…v. Heller , 554 U. S. , this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense
Simon Stern raises a baseball bat above his head while facing an aggressor who is charging toward him. Stern intends only to make the aggressor stop and retreat. He does not swing or strike. The aggressor halts, turns, and later sues Stern for assault. The court holds that Stern's act was privileged because it was intended merely to create apprehension of harmful contact and did not exceed what he reasonably believed necessary for protection.
An actor is not privileged to use any means of self-defense intended or likely to cause bodily harm or confinement exceeding what the actor correctly or reasonably believes necessary for protection. Force beyond that limit exposes the actor to liability for the excess.
Supporting sources