Posted by: Susan Murphy

Lawyer Explains That Self-Defense Without Proportional Force Is Illegal

There are multiple scenarios where someone offends us or becomes frustrated due to their actions or words. In such a situation, would it be self-defense to strike back at this person, especially if they’re playing a mildly painful prank?

Fortunately, attorney Ugo Lord answers this question by reacting to a viral short skit on TikTok and YouTube. The video shows a young man boiling water while his friend sneaks up on him and whips his neck.

Before the friend could react, the young man poured the boiling water on the prankster and slammed the cabinet door on his head. Is this self-defense for the impending prank?

Ugo Lord Explains Appropriate Self-Defense

After letting the viral skit play, Tiktok star lawyer Ugo Lord explains: “In order for self-defense to be justifiable, you must use proportional force to stop an imminent threat of bodily harm!”.

He continues, pointing out that the retaliation to the prank goes too far, which makes him guilty if his friend pressed charges. In this case, the charges will most likely be battery as it’s legally defined as an unlawful application of force, causing bodily injury or offensive contact.

Understanding Self-Defense and Proportional Force

Self-defense is the right to use force to protect yourself or someone else from being harmed by another person. However, the force you use must be proportional to the threat you face. This means that you can only use as much force as necessary to stop the harm from happening.

Factors Determining Self-Defense

The law of self-defense varies from state to state, but courts consider some common factors when deciding if a person acted in self-defense or not.

These factors include:

  • The nature of the threat: Was the person threatened with deadly force (such as a gun or a knife) or non-deadly force (such as a punch or a shove)? The person defending themselves can use deadly force only if they reasonably believe that their life or the life of another person is in danger.
  • The provocation: Did the person defending themselves do anything to provoke or start the attack? The person defending themselves may lose their right to self-defense if they intentionally or recklessly provoke the attacker.
  • The duty to retreat: Did the person defending themselves have a chance to escape or avoid the attack? The person defending themselves may have to retreat or withdraw from the situation if they can do so safely unless they are in their own home or property. This rule does not apply to “Stand Your Ground” states.
  • The reasonableness of the belief: Did the person defending themselves have a reasonable belief or fear that they were in imminent danger of harm? The person defending themselves must act based on what a reasonable person in their situation would think or feel, not on their own subjective feelings or emotions.
  • The reasonableness of the force: Did the person defending themselves use reasonable force to stop the attack? The person defending themselves must use only the amount of force that is necessary and appropriate to prevent harm, not more than that.

For example…

If someone tries to punch you, you can punch them back to defend yourself, but you cannot shoot them with a gun. That would be using excessive force that is not proportional to the threat. 

On the other hand, if someone tries to stab you with a knife, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, such as shooting them with a gun or hitting them with a baseball bat. That would be using proportional force that matches the threat.

Conclusion

Violence isn’t always the answer, as it could lead to a more complicated outcome. For example, one user comments, “The suspect is in hot water or pouring hot water,” humorously mentioning possible battery charges.

In such a situation, it’s best to take a more reasonable approach by backing away, speaking sternly to the attacker, or pushing them away. However, if your attempts fail and force becomes necessary, Ugo Lord urges to please use proportional force to avoid legal problems.

2 Comments

  1. […] food to the woman—may appear objectively reasonable under given circumstances, especially since no more aggressive forms were used. Finally, he might claim that there was a real threat to him physically unless he […]

  2. […] Self-defense is the justifiable use of force on another person that can cause their death or inflict major injury. It is an affirmative defense that requires you to accept responsibility for your actions. It requires you to justify your action rather than deny that you committed a crime. However, the law authorities rarely give self-defense enough weightage, and people are handsomely charged for protecting themselves or their properties. […]

Leave a Comment