![]() | The contents of the Son assault demesne page were merged into Right of self-defense on 26 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Right of self-defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no mention here of the universal religious prohibition against killing. Although many religions today condone self-defense, they all seem to contradict the apparently absolute condemnations from Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi, not to mention the immense literature dedicated to pacifism and non-violence that implicitly contradicts or qualifies the right to self-defense.
The other omitted problem is that the definition of self-defense varies from state to state, and from person to person, especially among those who are undergoing some form of stress.
It is hard to think of a war that was not started for reasons of self-defense. This calls for a section on the common misuse of the doctrine.
Could the right of self-defense be a shibboleth like war itself, an ancient and very convenient belief that has gone on too far without critical examination? 04:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdubay ( talk • contribs)
I have a question about the self-defence law. Is it considered self-defence if you are protecting a friend? If my friend was being attacked and I killed his assailant, would it be considered self-defence? Could I still go to jail? -[68.82.208.62 at 01:23, 15 March 2004] --- Shouldn't this be merged with [Self-defence]?
Your answer is on the "Article Tab" on this page. I'll paste it here for you.
Self-defense law in England English law provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. It is provided in both common law and more specifically in the Criminal Law Act (1967). If such a defence is proved to the satisfaction of the court then the person is fully acquitted of the charges against them.
The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so - demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.
The other key factor is reasonableness - the defendants response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack. The harm inflicted on the assailant must not exceed the harm being avoided by the defendant. However like immanency the nature of the defence rests on the defendant's belief, whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.
While I agree that "Defence of others" belong in this article, I think that section is very US centric. I'm no legal expert but it seems to me that many passages are directly refering to US law and courts. A clean-up is needed. -- J-Star 06:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Scott Sanchez added the following material to the page, which I'm not sure fits within the tone of the article, and may require an article of its own. I brought it here to seek a consensus as to whether it should be returned to the article, or moved elsewhere. -- BD2412 talk 21:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
To the person that removes mentions of statute law repeatedly: in countries based on civil law, statute law states that self-defense and defense of others are acceptable legal excuses provided that the means of defense used are proportional to the offense (however, typically, what is meant by "means proportional to the offense" is typically left for courts to decide).
By the way, you're not supposed to repeatedly remove content without at least some discussion on the talk page. David.Monniaux 05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know much about templates, but is it possible for the article to carry both the criminal and tort law templates positioned in a sensible way? If not, I think the crimlaw template would be more appropriate.
This article seems a little unclear to me. For one, the right to self-defence in the united states is generaly understood to be an exercise of your right to life, just like publishing a news paper is an exercise of your right to free speech; I don't see this mentioned in the article. In general, the article gives the impression that self-defence is a result of governments not doing a great job of defending the population, leaving the people to fend for themselves. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Dullfig 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
In some jurisdictions, the aggressor may lose the ability to argue self-defense by speaking provocative words. See, e.g., Vaughn v. State, 17 Ala. App. 383, 84 So. 879 (1920); Wheatley v. State, 93 Ark. 409, 125 S.W. 414 (1910); People v. Barnard, 208 Ill. App. 3d 342, 567 N.E.2d 60 (mere words enough), appeal denied, 139 Ill. 2d 598, 575 N.E.2d 917, 159 Ill. Dec. 110 (1991); McCarty v. Commonwealth, 244 Ky. 413, 51 S.W.2d 249 (1932); State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1043 (Mo. 1924); State v. Council, 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788 (1924); Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Scott v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 510, 129 S.E. 360 (1925). THF 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As Make My Day State is largely unreferenced, I'm not sure about merging it into Self-defense, which itself needs a lot of improvement. As this article seems like the best umbrella article, I think Make My Day State should be merged into this one. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
response: “Make my day state” is a common term in law enforcement and legal circles, not to mention the gun lobby. It really deserves a listing in its own right in the hope that others will append references to newspaper articles and legal precedent references. -- Jasburger ( talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this after noticing that, until a few minutes ago, there was no article on the "right of self-defense."
I moved this article there because it isn't as common to call it a "theory."
Without renaming it, it would be impossible to integrate this article with the {{Freedom}} template and the {{Rights}} template. Otherwise, I would've had to create "right of self-defense," as a separate article, which would've basically been a silly POV fork. There's no reason to create a new article when this one right here is already a mess. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get to work merging the following articles into this one:
I was going to just expand this article and merge those last two POV forks into this one, but then it occurred to me that it would be impossible for me to expand this article in a way that wouldn't be redundant.
Since the broader topic is the "right of self-defense," and the right to bear arms is just a small sub-set of that, then this article should be larger than Right to bear arms, but right now it's the other way around.
Much of the content in Right to bear arms isn't just discussing the right to bear arms, but the right of self-defense overall. I.E., English common law and John Locke didn't just argue for people to have the right to own weapons, but the broader right to defend themselves, which was why they had the right weapons. So, Right to bear arms should be a sub-section (or perhaps a description in the lead?) while all of the information in Right to bear arms should be merged here. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, that's true, but then I'm confused: How should I expand this article? Clearly, a lot of stuff in Right to bear arms doesn't belong. John Locke specifically talked about right to self-defense, English Common law was the basis for both the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. What should both articles contain, in your opinion?
I was going to do a bold re-write, but it occurred to me that I'd just be redundantly re-stating all the stuff that's already in Right to bear arms. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, there doesn't need to be a full merge between right of self-defense and right to bear arms, just 90%, since right of self-defense is the broader topic. Right to bear arms should focus specifically on gun rights, particularly with regard to America's Second amendment, while "right of self-defense," would discuss Classical Liberalism, English common law, etc.. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in part, agree in part. The "Make my day law' & "Make my day state" articles could be absorbed into the broader "right of self defense" article, but due to the contention involved with weapons possession & use issues the mis-appropriately named "right to bear arms" page should be left on its own. Mikegtr71 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no additions to this discussion for quite some time and it appears that the consensus was strongly against merging these articles, I am closing this discussion and removing the proposed merger tag from the mainspace page. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
28-March-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. - Wikid77 ( talk) 11:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"In all but one U.S. jurisdiction, using deadly force against a robber or burglar who is attempting to escape with property is likewise not justifiable (Texas is the only exception and holds the defendant to a high burden of proof that the action was the only means available to recover the property without a serious risk of death or serious injury)."
I do not believe this is strictly correct. For example, New Jersey clearly provides for the use of force, and even deadly force, in defense of personal property. To be sure, there are limitations, but the fact remains that deadly force is a legal option. See, New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4, 2C:3-6, 2C:3-9, available from the New Jersey Legislature site, http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ Ampermc ( talk) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, further research shows that the use of deadly force in protection of property is only justifiable under NJ law if the use of deadly force is also justified under some other provision. Ampermc ( talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting topic that I haven't seen covered very much and not in this article. Is there an exception to right of self-defense where police are involved? That is to say, if a person uses deadly force against a civilian who wields a sidearm against them, that is considered to fall under the right of self-defense. Does the same right apply if a person uses deadly force against a police officer who wields a sidearm against them? From this article and the sources I have seen, no distinction is made, but I have never heard of a successful claim of self-defense in this situation. Can something on this be added to the article? If such an exception or special case does exist it should be noted. 216.36.188.184 ( talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an article about this, but the situation in Germany is very different. Unknown to many, there is little to no comparison being done between the crime committed and the action taken as a self defense. You have to take the least aggressive defense if you have multiple options. But note this:
For example you may shoot thieves of your wallet who are running away, if that's currently the only way to stop them. The general theme is: "Justice never needs to yield to Injustice" and "in doubt for the defender". German law influenced a lot of other laws so I wonder if there is more countries like this. Maybe someone with a background in law can do some research. The respective laws are StGB 32 and StGB 33 to give a starting point. -- 87.162.222.77 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
I have placed this tag on this article because it has absolutly no intext refs.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I found the international law stub imminent threat which I added to include the context of the term, namely self-defence in international law. Because of this I was more or less at a loss what to do: should this topic be brought under the banner of right of self-defense or should a new topic be created? Marxmorley ( talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I want to share a brief story.
In 4th grade, there was some terrible bullying. This guy kept trying to cause his victim much harm. He once stole a tuque from him, and, as a result, he got chased, and the victim shoved him to the ground, and forced him to give the tuque back.
Then, there was a much more serious episode. This time, he grabbed the victim's hair, and attempted to get a spark on his lighter, so he could set the victim's hair on fire. It never happened, but, I think it was attempted murder.
Anyways, those are just a few examples. One day, the victim got tired of this guy's bullying, and turned to violence. Now, this is important to know, that the bully was at least twice his victim's size. Guess who got easily dominated? The bully. The victim was so enraged, he had no control of his emotions, whatsoever. Sure, the victim got into most trouble with the school faculty, but, not with his parents.
Everything peaceful was tried (Except for calling the Police - the victim didn't want it to go that far.), and it didn't work, so, violence was an option. That's what the victim did, and, well, he never got bullied at that school, again.
Quick question about this. Was it 100% legal? Or, could the victim have been charged? If so, for what, and why? Thanks, for reading. -- 208.96.121.65 ( talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"Most courts have ruled that such a defense cannot be used to protect friends or family members who have engaged in an illegal fight. Likewise, one cannot use this to aid a criminal."
This looks like it should be removed from the article.
I am at a loss to understand what exactly is meant by "illegal fight" and I doubt many can do better. Without a reference to clarify meaning or reason I believe that the statement too ambiguous and vague to be of use to the reader.
The second statement is too general to be true. "Criminal" [n] has a very broad definition. It might be better written as "to assist in a criminal act" but even that would be pointless as (knowingly) assisting in a criminal act is, assuming you pick a reasonable definition, often illegal irrespective of how. It's redundant in the same way that it would be redundant to state that murdering someone with an axe is illegal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.161.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping this article which I found by typing "self defence law" into Wikipedia's search box would tell me more about this law which is apparently used as a defence in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unfortuantely I cannot find anything? Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with comments that, given the title, the article is far too US-centric. There is another article - Self-defence in international law - but that is too brief to reflect the current international controversy. Some of the classic international examples of claimed self-defence and US involvement on the international arena are perhaps inadequately addressed or referenced in both articles, such as:
Further, the concept of "Anticipatory self-defence" is not addressed, while existing articles such as " Preemptive war", " Self-defence in English law" and the " Bush doctrine" are not referenced. The title seems to me to be very "high-level" requiring referencing to sub-categories such as those mentioned. The current article could perhaps be renamed to reflect its focus.
Since I am very new here, I ask for some education as to how these issues are customarily addressed. Enquiringeric ( talk) 11:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a complete mishmosh. It reads like a term paper begun eight hours before it is due. Could somebody who is a good and careful writer start over? Perhaps start by deciding on the points they want to make? 50.0.36.122 ( talk) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WTF is the idea behind saying that the use of force involves violence is a POV statement? Whadya think the "right of self-defense" means - the right to challenge your attacker to a game of chess? To file a complaint at the police station? When people talk about "reasonable force" or "deadly force" they're talking about violent actions. Don't pussyfoot around that basic fact. Felsic ( talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a 16 Dec. 2018 copy of Legal Defense for Self-Defense Claim:
Legal Defense for Self-Defense Claim
When trying to claim a self-defense case it will all depend on the threat. Was it a verbal threat to where the person felt threatened. To where he or she felt like they needed to defend themselves. It will also depend on if the threat was imminent or not.[5] Was the threat about to happen, was the person's life really in danger. Did he or she provoke the person for the attack to happen. When the person attacked the person, did his or hers self-defense match the threat. Was it an overkill to where the person ended up dead. To where you didn't need to put that much force towards a person. Was it a 'castle doctrine' defense.[6] Did they intentionally break in your home and try to harm you or your family to where he or she had to defend themselves or others using deadly force. To claim self-defense one of these things must have happened.
The grammar and writing style are plainly poopy. I'd fix it, but I lack the time just now. Could someone else, please?
Cramyourspam (
talk) 02:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Someone who's wrong on the internet proposed merging son assault demesne into this article, but neglected to begin a discussion at either article. Since the "discuss" link leads here, I'm starting it here. Son assault demesne is described as a plea entered to justify (i.e., as a defense to the charge of) an act of assault and battery. I think that it makes good sense to cover it together with other self-defense related arguments. However, this article is in need of substantial cleanup, while son assault demesne is in relatively good order, if a bit brief. I would recommend cleaning it up before merging son assault demesne here, because otherwise this article will be even more of a mess, and harder for readers to navigate. If someone is willing to undertake that task, then I would support a merger after this article is put into a better state.
I also suggest that son assault demesne could stand to be reworded, both to make it a little clearer, and so that it's not entirely or almost entirely quoted from a nineteenth-century legal dictionary. Some nineteenth-century prose is excellent, but that doesn't strike me as the case with son assault demesne, and I dislike using attribution templates alluding to the incorporation of language from public domain sources, because then if anybody edits the text, it becomes unclear what is quoted and what is not. Better to reword long passages for clarity, even if they're still cited to the same source—which is fine—and mark exact quotations using quotation marks or block paragraphs within non-quoted text. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I propose the name of the page should be moved to "Right of self-defense (United-States)" due to the US-centric information found on this page. Once the name is moved, it would be beneficial to add self-defense on a global scale with United States involvement. @ Enquiringeric mentioned a few topics that could be added to this section. Greenthumb7 ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Son assault demesne page were merged into Right of self-defense on 26 November 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Right of self-defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no mention here of the universal religious prohibition against killing. Although many religions today condone self-defense, they all seem to contradict the apparently absolute condemnations from Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi, not to mention the immense literature dedicated to pacifism and non-violence that implicitly contradicts or qualifies the right to self-defense.
The other omitted problem is that the definition of self-defense varies from state to state, and from person to person, especially among those who are undergoing some form of stress.
It is hard to think of a war that was not started for reasons of self-defense. This calls for a section on the common misuse of the doctrine.
Could the right of self-defense be a shibboleth like war itself, an ancient and very convenient belief that has gone on too far without critical examination? 04:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdubay ( talk • contribs)
I have a question about the self-defence law. Is it considered self-defence if you are protecting a friend? If my friend was being attacked and I killed his assailant, would it be considered self-defence? Could I still go to jail? -[68.82.208.62 at 01:23, 15 March 2004] --- Shouldn't this be merged with [Self-defence]?
Your answer is on the "Article Tab" on this page. I'll paste it here for you.
Self-defense law in England English law provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. It is provided in both common law and more specifically in the Criminal Law Act (1967). If such a defence is proved to the satisfaction of the court then the person is fully acquitted of the charges against them.
The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so - demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.
The other key factor is reasonableness - the defendants response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack. The harm inflicted on the assailant must not exceed the harm being avoided by the defendant. However like immanency the nature of the defence rests on the defendant's belief, whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.
While I agree that "Defence of others" belong in this article, I think that section is very US centric. I'm no legal expert but it seems to me that many passages are directly refering to US law and courts. A clean-up is needed. -- J-Star 06:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Scott Sanchez added the following material to the page, which I'm not sure fits within the tone of the article, and may require an article of its own. I brought it here to seek a consensus as to whether it should be returned to the article, or moved elsewhere. -- BD2412 talk 21:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
To the person that removes mentions of statute law repeatedly: in countries based on civil law, statute law states that self-defense and defense of others are acceptable legal excuses provided that the means of defense used are proportional to the offense (however, typically, what is meant by "means proportional to the offense" is typically left for courts to decide).
By the way, you're not supposed to repeatedly remove content without at least some discussion on the talk page. David.Monniaux 05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know much about templates, but is it possible for the article to carry both the criminal and tort law templates positioned in a sensible way? If not, I think the crimlaw template would be more appropriate.
This article seems a little unclear to me. For one, the right to self-defence in the united states is generaly understood to be an exercise of your right to life, just like publishing a news paper is an exercise of your right to free speech; I don't see this mentioned in the article. In general, the article gives the impression that self-defence is a result of governments not doing a great job of defending the population, leaving the people to fend for themselves. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Dullfig 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
In some jurisdictions, the aggressor may lose the ability to argue self-defense by speaking provocative words. See, e.g., Vaughn v. State, 17 Ala. App. 383, 84 So. 879 (1920); Wheatley v. State, 93 Ark. 409, 125 S.W. 414 (1910); People v. Barnard, 208 Ill. App. 3d 342, 567 N.E.2d 60 (mere words enough), appeal denied, 139 Ill. 2d 598, 575 N.E.2d 917, 159 Ill. Dec. 110 (1991); McCarty v. Commonwealth, 244 Ky. 413, 51 S.W.2d 249 (1932); State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1043 (Mo. 1924); State v. Council, 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788 (1924); Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Scott v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 510, 129 S.E. 360 (1925). THF 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As Make My Day State is largely unreferenced, I'm not sure about merging it into Self-defense, which itself needs a lot of improvement. As this article seems like the best umbrella article, I think Make My Day State should be merged into this one. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
response: “Make my day state” is a common term in law enforcement and legal circles, not to mention the gun lobby. It really deserves a listing in its own right in the hope that others will append references to newspaper articles and legal precedent references. -- Jasburger ( talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this after noticing that, until a few minutes ago, there was no article on the "right of self-defense."
I moved this article there because it isn't as common to call it a "theory."
Without renaming it, it would be impossible to integrate this article with the {{Freedom}} template and the {{Rights}} template. Otherwise, I would've had to create "right of self-defense," as a separate article, which would've basically been a silly POV fork. There's no reason to create a new article when this one right here is already a mess. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get to work merging the following articles into this one:
I was going to just expand this article and merge those last two POV forks into this one, but then it occurred to me that it would be impossible for me to expand this article in a way that wouldn't be redundant.
Since the broader topic is the "right of self-defense," and the right to bear arms is just a small sub-set of that, then this article should be larger than Right to bear arms, but right now it's the other way around.
Much of the content in Right to bear arms isn't just discussing the right to bear arms, but the right of self-defense overall. I.E., English common law and John Locke didn't just argue for people to have the right to own weapons, but the broader right to defend themselves, which was why they had the right weapons. So, Right to bear arms should be a sub-section (or perhaps a description in the lead?) while all of the information in Right to bear arms should be merged here. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
SaltyBoatr, that's true, but then I'm confused: How should I expand this article? Clearly, a lot of stuff in Right to bear arms doesn't belong. John Locke specifically talked about right to self-defense, English Common law was the basis for both the right to self-defense and the right to bear arms. What should both articles contain, in your opinion?
I was going to do a bold re-write, but it occurred to me that I'd just be redundantly re-stating all the stuff that's already in Right to bear arms. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, there doesn't need to be a full merge between right of self-defense and right to bear arms, just 90%, since right of self-defense is the broader topic. Right to bear arms should focus specifically on gun rights, particularly with regard to America's Second amendment, while "right of self-defense," would discuss Classical Liberalism, English common law, etc.. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in part, agree in part. The "Make my day law' & "Make my day state" articles could be absorbed into the broader "right of self defense" article, but due to the contention involved with weapons possession & use issues the mis-appropriately named "right to bear arms" page should be left on its own. Mikegtr71 06:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there have been no additions to this discussion for quite some time and it appears that the consensus was strongly against merging these articles, I am closing this discussion and removing the proposed merger tag from the mainspace page. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 09:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
28-March-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. - Wikid77 ( talk) 11:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"In all but one U.S. jurisdiction, using deadly force against a robber or burglar who is attempting to escape with property is likewise not justifiable (Texas is the only exception and holds the defendant to a high burden of proof that the action was the only means available to recover the property without a serious risk of death or serious injury)."
I do not believe this is strictly correct. For example, New Jersey clearly provides for the use of force, and even deadly force, in defense of personal property. To be sure, there are limitations, but the fact remains that deadly force is a legal option. See, New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4, 2C:3-6, 2C:3-9, available from the New Jersey Legislature site, http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ Ampermc ( talk) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, further research shows that the use of deadly force in protection of property is only justifiable under NJ law if the use of deadly force is also justified under some other provision. Ampermc ( talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting topic that I haven't seen covered very much and not in this article. Is there an exception to right of self-defense where police are involved? That is to say, if a person uses deadly force against a civilian who wields a sidearm against them, that is considered to fall under the right of self-defense. Does the same right apply if a person uses deadly force against a police officer who wields a sidearm against them? From this article and the sources I have seen, no distinction is made, but I have never heard of a successful claim of self-defense in this situation. Can something on this be added to the article? If such an exception or special case does exist it should be noted. 216.36.188.184 ( talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an article about this, but the situation in Germany is very different. Unknown to many, there is little to no comparison being done between the crime committed and the action taken as a self defense. You have to take the least aggressive defense if you have multiple options. But note this:
For example you may shoot thieves of your wallet who are running away, if that's currently the only way to stop them. The general theme is: "Justice never needs to yield to Injustice" and "in doubt for the defender". German law influenced a lot of other laws so I wonder if there is more countries like this. Maybe someone with a background in law can do some research. The respective laws are StGB 32 and StGB 33 to give a starting point. -- 87.162.222.77 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
I have placed this tag on this article because it has absolutly no intext refs.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I found the international law stub imminent threat which I added to include the context of the term, namely self-defence in international law. Because of this I was more or less at a loss what to do: should this topic be brought under the banner of right of self-defense or should a new topic be created? Marxmorley ( talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I want to share a brief story.
In 4th grade, there was some terrible bullying. This guy kept trying to cause his victim much harm. He once stole a tuque from him, and, as a result, he got chased, and the victim shoved him to the ground, and forced him to give the tuque back.
Then, there was a much more serious episode. This time, he grabbed the victim's hair, and attempted to get a spark on his lighter, so he could set the victim's hair on fire. It never happened, but, I think it was attempted murder.
Anyways, those are just a few examples. One day, the victim got tired of this guy's bullying, and turned to violence. Now, this is important to know, that the bully was at least twice his victim's size. Guess who got easily dominated? The bully. The victim was so enraged, he had no control of his emotions, whatsoever. Sure, the victim got into most trouble with the school faculty, but, not with his parents.
Everything peaceful was tried (Except for calling the Police - the victim didn't want it to go that far.), and it didn't work, so, violence was an option. That's what the victim did, and, well, he never got bullied at that school, again.
Quick question about this. Was it 100% legal? Or, could the victim have been charged? If so, for what, and why? Thanks, for reading. -- 208.96.121.65 ( talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"Most courts have ruled that such a defense cannot be used to protect friends or family members who have engaged in an illegal fight. Likewise, one cannot use this to aid a criminal."
This looks like it should be removed from the article.
I am at a loss to understand what exactly is meant by "illegal fight" and I doubt many can do better. Without a reference to clarify meaning or reason I believe that the statement too ambiguous and vague to be of use to the reader.
The second statement is too general to be true. "Criminal" [n] has a very broad definition. It might be better written as "to assist in a criminal act" but even that would be pointless as (knowingly) assisting in a criminal act is, assuming you pick a reasonable definition, often illegal irrespective of how. It's redundant in the same way that it would be redundant to state that murdering someone with an axe is illegal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.161.116 ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping this article which I found by typing "self defence law" into Wikipedia's search box would tell me more about this law which is apparently used as a defence in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unfortuantely I cannot find anything? Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with comments that, given the title, the article is far too US-centric. There is another article - Self-defence in international law - but that is too brief to reflect the current international controversy. Some of the classic international examples of claimed self-defence and US involvement on the international arena are perhaps inadequately addressed or referenced in both articles, such as:
Further, the concept of "Anticipatory self-defence" is not addressed, while existing articles such as " Preemptive war", " Self-defence in English law" and the " Bush doctrine" are not referenced. The title seems to me to be very "high-level" requiring referencing to sub-categories such as those mentioned. The current article could perhaps be renamed to reflect its focus.
Since I am very new here, I ask for some education as to how these issues are customarily addressed. Enquiringeric ( talk) 11:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a complete mishmosh. It reads like a term paper begun eight hours before it is due. Could somebody who is a good and careful writer start over? Perhaps start by deciding on the points they want to make? 50.0.36.122 ( talk) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WTF is the idea behind saying that the use of force involves violence is a POV statement? Whadya think the "right of self-defense" means - the right to challenge your attacker to a game of chess? To file a complaint at the police station? When people talk about "reasonable force" or "deadly force" they're talking about violent actions. Don't pussyfoot around that basic fact. Felsic ( talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a 16 Dec. 2018 copy of Legal Defense for Self-Defense Claim:
Legal Defense for Self-Defense Claim
When trying to claim a self-defense case it will all depend on the threat. Was it a verbal threat to where the person felt threatened. To where he or she felt like they needed to defend themselves. It will also depend on if the threat was imminent or not.[5] Was the threat about to happen, was the person's life really in danger. Did he or she provoke the person for the attack to happen. When the person attacked the person, did his or hers self-defense match the threat. Was it an overkill to where the person ended up dead. To where you didn't need to put that much force towards a person. Was it a 'castle doctrine' defense.[6] Did they intentionally break in your home and try to harm you or your family to where he or she had to defend themselves or others using deadly force. To claim self-defense one of these things must have happened.
The grammar and writing style are plainly poopy. I'd fix it, but I lack the time just now. Could someone else, please?
Cramyourspam (
talk) 02:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Someone who's wrong on the internet proposed merging son assault demesne into this article, but neglected to begin a discussion at either article. Since the "discuss" link leads here, I'm starting it here. Son assault demesne is described as a plea entered to justify (i.e., as a defense to the charge of) an act of assault and battery. I think that it makes good sense to cover it together with other self-defense related arguments. However, this article is in need of substantial cleanup, while son assault demesne is in relatively good order, if a bit brief. I would recommend cleaning it up before merging son assault demesne here, because otherwise this article will be even more of a mess, and harder for readers to navigate. If someone is willing to undertake that task, then I would support a merger after this article is put into a better state.
I also suggest that son assault demesne could stand to be reworded, both to make it a little clearer, and so that it's not entirely or almost entirely quoted from a nineteenth-century legal dictionary. Some nineteenth-century prose is excellent, but that doesn't strike me as the case with son assault demesne, and I dislike using attribution templates alluding to the incorporation of language from public domain sources, because then if anybody edits the text, it becomes unclear what is quoted and what is not. Better to reword long passages for clarity, even if they're still cited to the same source—which is fine—and mark exact quotations using quotation marks or block paragraphs within non-quoted text. P Aculeius ( talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I propose the name of the page should be moved to "Right of self-defense (United-States)" due to the US-centric information found on this page. Once the name is moved, it would be beneficial to add self-defense on a global scale with United States involvement. @ Enquiringeric mentioned a few topics that could be added to this section. Greenthumb7 ( talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)