Proportionality in Self-Defense: Legal Force Standards

Deadly force is defined as force that will foreseeably and reasonably create the likelihood of death or causing serious bodily harm (also known as great bodily harm), which includes injuries involving substantial risk of death, protracted disfigurement, protracted loss of physical function, or protracted loss of consciousness such as gunshot wounds, stabbings with deep penetration, broken bones, severe burns, and loss of limbs. Understanding this distinction is critical because misapplying deadly force when only non-deadly force was justified can result in serious criminal liability, as many individuals mistakenly believe their actions are less than lethal when they could foreseeably cause great bodily harm.

Self-defense is divided into non-deadly and deadly force. Non-deadly force requires the actor to reasonably believe force is necessary to protect against imminent unlawful force, with no duty to retreat. Deadly force requires: (1) a threat of actual or apparent deadly force that is unlawful and imminent, (2) reasonable belief of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, and (3) reasonable belief that the response is necessary. The aggressor rule prevents those who incite violence from claiming self-defense, though they can regain rights by withdrawing. The majority rule allows standing ground, while the minority requires retreat if safe. The castle doctrine exempts retreat from one's home. The Model Penal Code uses a subjective belief test and imposes a duty to retreat except in one's home.

Deadly force is any force that can cause death or grave bodily injury. Non-deadly force is anything less. You can only use deadly force in response to a deadly force threat. A sustained beating that could cause grave bodily injury qualifies as a deadly force threat. People commonly get into trouble when they use deadly force against a non-deadly threat, such as using a gun against someone merely threatening to shove them. Statistics show you are five times more likely to be the victim of a non-deadly force attack than a deadly force attack. If your only self-defense tool is a gun, you may be forced to use deadly force against a non-deadly threat, making your use of force disproportionate and unlawful. Martial artists must understand that techniques causing grave bodily harm constitute deadly force, regardless of whether weapons are used.

Proportionality requires matching defensive force to the threat level. Deadly force includes any force reasonably capable of causing death or serious bodily injury (broken bones, loss of bodily function, or death). Non-deadly force cannot readily cause such harm. The law requires proportional responses: non-deadly force against non-deadly threats, deadly force only against deadly threats. Vehicles can constitute deadly weapons when used to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The burden of proof rests on the state to disprove self-defense elements beyond reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove self-defense.

Deadly force can only be used in response to imminent deadly force or great bodily harm. Non-deadly force (such as fists, feet, or a skateboard) does not automatically justify deadly force. However, the law recognizes that non-deadly force can create a reasonable belief of imminent deadly harm, particularly when combined with other factors like threats or the nature of the confrontation. Head trauma is considered classic grievous bodily harm because it has a tendency to cause permanent or serious injury. Unarmed people can exercise deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe they face imminent death or great bodily harm. Self-defense claims must be evaluated from each person's individual perspective. What is reasonable from one person's viewpoint may not be reasonable from another's. The law recognizes that different people have different knowledge, perceptions, and circumstances. This means that multiple parties can simultaneously have valid self-defense claims, and the law evaluates each claim separately based on what each person reasonably believed.

Imminence means the threat is about to happen right now. The A-O-J framework evaluates imminence: (1) Ability - does the attacker have the physical ability to cause harm? (2) Opportunity - are they close enough to bring that ability to bear? (3) Jeopardy - are they acting in a way that would lead a reasonable person to believe they are about to attack? All three must be present for a threat to be imminent. Words alone are never sufficient; there must be some physical action. Future threats, such as someone saying 'I'm going to get my friends and come back here and beat you up,' do not justify immediate self-defense. The law expects you to leave the area or call the police rather than fight over a future threat.

Imminence (inminencia) means the aggression is inevitable and unavoidable through any other means. The only way to prevent the damage to the legal interest (life, physical integrity, or property) is by repelling the aggression. If no other method exists to avoid the imminent harm, legitimate defense becomes the necessary and justified response. This requirement ensures that defensive force is only used when absolutely necessary.

The attack must be imminent for defense to be justifiable. The video explains that the attack must be occurring or about to occur, leaving no time to seek help from authorities. If the attack is in the future or not imminent, defense is not justifiable. This requirement ensures that defense is only used when truly necessary for self-protection.

The imminence of a threat is a critical factor in determining the appropriate level of force response. When a threat is no longer imminent (such as when a gun is put away and the individual is no longer displaying aggressive intent), the justification for using deadly force ceases. At this point, less lethal alternatives like OC spray become appropriate tools for addressing the situation.

The imminence element requires that the threat being defended against must be occurring in the present moment or immediately about to occur. The person must be getting shot, punched, or facing an imminent attack such as someone pulling back a fist or stepping on the gas to race toward them. The threat cannot be speculative about the future (such as someone saying they will come back later) nor can it be a past threat. For example, if someone tried to run you over yesterday and you see them again today, they are no longer presenting an imminent threat.

The reasonable person standard is used to determine whether a person's belief that they faced imminent danger was objectively reasonable. This standard considers what a hypothetical reasonable person would perceive in the same circumstances, not what the actual person believed. The analysis involves examining whether the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe they faced imminent death or serious bodily harm.

The reasonable person standard is a legal test used to determine whether an individual's belief that they were in danger was objectively reasonable. The speaker explains that courts will examine whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have feared for their own or others' bodily safety. This standard considers the totality of the circumstances and whether the individual's perception of danger was justified under the circumstances, even if it ultimately proves incorrect.

The subjective reasonableness standard requires that a defendant genuinely believed they faced imminent deadly force at the moment they acted. This belief must be reasonable under the circumstances, even if the belief was ultimately mistaken. Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the aggressor's words, actions, and the immediate environment. The defendant's perception of danger is what matters, not whether the danger actually existed, as long as that perception was reasonable given what a prudent person would have perceived.

Self-defense analysis uses an objective reasonable person standard, not just a subjective test. This means courts analyze whether a reasonable person would have believed their life was in danger, regardless of what the actual person believed. The standard considers what a reasonable person would have thought about the threat level at each point in time.

The objective reasonable person standard measures what a hypothetical reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. This person adopts the defendant's reasonable characteristics (age, physical stature, known conditions) but not unreasonable beliefs. For example, a 90-year-old woman would be measured against what a reasonable 90-year-old woman would do, but not against extreme beliefs like thinking all blonde-haired people are dangerous.