Hello everyone, welcome to yourstepto.com
Well, it’s summer time … vacations, beach, hangouts, trips, nights and much more. We’re going to enjoy the summer as much as we can, but , … what if something went wrong ?
What if you’re doing your common stuff and suddenly that punk shows off?
What if the only way to save the day is by a fight?
Do you even know how to fight?
And if you know >>> can you stay away of jail?
First of all >> you should know that self defense is not a mystery today … you can attend as much self defense classes as you can, you can search the web for some free self defense classes … you can also get trained with self defense weapons >> however doing all of these things can help you survive the fight, it can’t keep you out of jail if you hurt or killed someone. So, you need to know more about self defense laws and how to deal with them to not go to jail.
The definition of self defense in law:
In the United States,
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that is used to justify the use of force by one person against another person under specific circumstances.
In English law,
Self defence is using reasonable force against an unjust threat. Self defence is a justification rather than an excuse (Robinson’s classification of defenses), that is, the defense is asserting that the actions were not a crime at all.
In the US, the general rule is that ”every person has the privilege to use such force as is reasonably necessary for him or her to defend against a perceived threat of unlawful violence immediately from another.” in cases not involving deadly force, that person must reasonably believe that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical damage.
When the use of deadly force is involved in a self defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s infliction or great bodily harm or death. Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. The minority of jurisdictions that do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside their own home.
A person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self defense as a justification unless they abandon the combat or the other party has responded with excessive force. If the aggressor has abandoned the combat, they normally must attempt to communicate that abandonment to the other party.
In the past, one could resist an unlawful arrest and claim self defense, however the modern trend is to move away from that rule. In most jurisdictions allowing a person to resist an unlawful arrest, the state requires that the unlawful arrest be accompanied by excessive force. The older view is represented by the U.S. Supreme Court case Bad Elk v. United States where an off-duty Sioux police officer was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing an on-duty police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest the man, because, at the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter.
Opinions differ as to what constitutes “reasonable force” but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine this because he would always maintain that he had acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of the case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if he was mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Australian case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:
The defence of self defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. …Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. …It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence… If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.