Self-Defense vs Retaliation: The Laws You Need To Know

Sometimes, violence is inescapable. You may have to retaliate to save your skin. In such situations, many would plead self-defense, but self-defense when does self-defense cross the line into retaliation?

Fortunately, social media star lawyer Ugo Lord explains this complicated concept while reacting to a viral video of a man responding to an attack.

The popular video shows a group of people in a heated argument when one woman suddenly approaches a man, grabbing his head. Enraged, the man retaliated by throwing a punch at the woman’s husband, possibly to avoid hitting a woman.

Does That Qualify As Self-Defense?

It’s reasonable to question whether the man’s responsive punch was justified since he was being assaulted and battered by the couple. Dr. Ugo Lord weighs in on the issue, saying that for self-defense to be justified, there must be a “…reasonable fear of bodily injury and the use of proportional force to stop the threat”.

He adds that “Both of those elements were found in this case; however, the man used force against the wrong person”. Dr. Lord further explains that although the [husband] was yelling at the man…there was no ‘act in furtherance’ to make that man believe that his life was in danger.

The attorney then adds that courts have repeatedly ruled that offensive words aren’t valid enough to justify self-defense. Therefore, attacking the husband could make the man guilty of battery.

What Is Self-Defense?

The law views self-defense as using force or violence to protect oneself or a third person from imminent harm. In other words, the victim believes they are in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death.

Therefore, for the court to rule in your favor, the case must contain the basic elements of self-defense. These include:

Imminent Danger

Imminent danger means the threat is happening right now; for example, a man angrily yelling and walking towards you with a clenched fist. Fighting back in such a situation is valid, as he’s coming to attack.

At the same time, you can’t fight back if the danger has passed; if the assailant tries to punch you, then turns his back and walks away, proceeding to attack is wrong.

Reasonable Belief

You must have a reasonable belief you’re in danger, and force or violence is necessary to protect yourself. In this case, the jury will assess the situation and consider what a reasonable person would have done.

If that reasonable person acted similarly, your actions would be considered reasonable. However, if they took a less violent route or conclusion, your retaliation would not be reasonable.

Proportionate Force

The degree of force used to protect yourself must be proportionate to the danger you face. For example, it would not be justified to shoot the man angrily walking towards you with a clenched fist.

The level of force used must be sufficient to stop the imminent threat of danger and nothing more.

The Man-Made One Fatal Mistake

In the case of this viral video, the man was obviously in imminent danger that posed serious bodily harm. His biggest mistake was attacking the woman’s husband instead of the aggressor herself.

Even if the husband said offensive words, his actions didn’t contribute to advancing the threat imposed by the lady. Therefore, hitting the husband doesn’t qualify as self-defense; directing the punch at the woman would make his self-defense case more valid.