Lawyer Listings Add, Update, or Remove Listings

Self-Defense and Justification

The defence that a use of force was lawful because it was necessary to protect oneself or another from imminent unlawful force - the reasonableness and proportionality requirements, the duty-to-retreat and stand-your-ground split among the states, the castle doctrine, and who bears the burden once the defence is raised.

Informational only - this is not legal advice. These definitions explain general legal vocabulary in plain English. They are not advice about your situation, reading them creates no attorney-client relationship, and the law differs from state to state and changes over time. For advice you can rely on, speak to a lawyer licensed in your state.

What it means

Self-defence is a justification: it does not deny that the defendant used force, it asserts that the force was lawful. The elements are broadly the same everywhere. The defendant must have reasonably believed that unlawful force against them, or against another person they were entitled to defend, was imminent; the force used must have been reasonably necessary to prevent it and proportionate to the threat; and deadly force is justified only to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or in many states certain violent felonies such as rape, robbery or kidnapping. The belief is judged from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's situation, knowing what the defendant knew - a mistaken belief can qualify if it was reasonable - and a person who provoked the confrontation or was the initial aggressor generally loses the defence unless they withdrew or the other side escalated to deadly force.

The states divide on retreat. A minority retain the common-law rule that a person who can safely retreat must do so before using deadly force outside the home; a majority have enacted "stand your ground" statutes providing that a person lawfully present has no duty to retreat, and several of those add procedural protections - a pretrial immunity hearing, or a presumption that force against an intruder was reasonable. Nearly every state recognises the castle doctrine, which removes any duty to retreat inside one's home and in many states one's vehicle or workplace, and some extend a presumption of reasonable fear to any forcible entry. Defence of property alone does not justify deadly force in most states; defence of others follows the same rules as self-defence, judged from the defender's reasonable perception.

Procedurally, self-defence is an affirmative defence the defendant must raise with some evidence, and in almost every state the prosecution must then disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; a small number place the burden of proving it on the defendant by a preponderance, which the Constitution permits. A defendant who used force in a way that was unreasonable or excessive may still be entitled to an instruction on "imperfect" self-defence in the states that recognise it, reducing murder to manslaughter. The defence is also available in a civil suit for battery or wrongful death, where the burden and standard differ.

Where this comes from

Self-defence is state law, restated in Model Penal Code §§ 3.04-3.09 (which most states have adapted, in whole or part) and in the state penal codes: Florida Statutes §§ 776.012-776.032 (stand-your-ground with pretrial immunity), Texas Penal Code ch. 9, and New York Penal Law § 35.15 (a duty-to-retreat state) are representative. Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), holds a state may place the burden of proving self-defence on the defendant; Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895), and Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), are the federal common-law roots of the no-retreat rule. Civil self-defence is Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 63-76. Which rule applies is each state's own.

When people hire a lawyer for this

A person who used force in self-defence and is questioned by police should invoke the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer before giving any account, however justified they feel: the defence lives or dies on the details of the sequence, and a statement given in shock rarely matches the physical evidence exactly. The lawyer's early work is to preserve the evidence that proves the threat - surveillance video, 911 recordings, the other party's injuries and history, witnesses - and in a stand-your-ground state to decide whether to seek the immunity hearing before trial.

Find a lawyer for this in your state

Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.

« All glossary terms

Part of the LawyerLand plain-English legal glossary. Definitions are written from primary sources - statutes and court rules - and each entry states the authority it rests on, or says plainly when the doctrine is state law with no national rule.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, civil legal aid programmes provide free help with many of these problems: civil legal aid programmes by state.

Related free reference tools: statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim, by state, quoted from each state's official text - part of LawyerLand's legal reference tools.