Citizens have a right to use force when their lives are in danger. Violence is, without question, justifiable under qualified circumstances.
Some may interpret injurious actions as despicable transgressions. In the aftermath, a lawsuit may arise. Particular legal principles help make clear the reasonableness of a retaliatory assault.
Principle #1: Innocence
For one to claim self-defense, the accused must prove not to be the initiator of the conflict. Only by applying violence could the defendant avoid injury. Someone guilty of “throwing the first punch” would not be able to make this argument. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws reinforce the acceptability of using deadly force against a home invader.
Principle #2: Inevitability
Defending against a violent charge demands showing the imminence inherent in the clash. With evidence of unavoidability, jurors understand the impossibility of finding a peaceful resolution. Likewise, preemptive assaults increase the difficulty of avoiding legal repercussions. The possibility of escape does the same.
Principle #3: Reasonableness
Defendants must convince others that they would react in the same manner. Defense attorneys know how to paint a picture that illustrates a particular mindset. Weaving a narrative that accomplishes this goal takes considerable argumentative skills.
Principle #4: Proportionality
Favorable rulings happen when the response in question is proportional to the threat. By way of illustration, a punch does not justify a stabbing. Someone throwing fists, though, would legitimize an equal reaction.
Legal arguments against accusations of violence need nuance and skill. The chances of acquittal are greater when self-defense ideals are top of mind.