Self-Defense and Defense of Others
Self-defense is covered more fully in criminal law, so this section was to only provide an overview of self-defense and the defense of others. The big takeaways from this section are:
- Anyone has the privilege to argue self defense.
- This privilege only applies to prevention of a threat, not of retaliation. Once the threat has passed, then any retaliation is seen as unjustified.
- There must be reasonable believe that force is necessary to justify the force.
- One cannot be “provoked” into self-defense. Vulgarity towards one is not enough to justify force. This is because the force may be seen as unreasonable.
- The amount of force applied must be reasonable.
- If possible, the threatened party must retreat.
The defense of others can also act as a defense. However, if a third party mistakenly helps the offender, then they cannot use self-defense as a defense.
Additional Notes
The reason why this is still a privilege, even if you are mistaken is because of the party who is “initiating” the aggression. This is to be examined by a reasonable standard. Thus, a reasonable mistake does not disqualify someone from not using self-defense as a privilege.
Defense of property
Katko v. Briney
Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971. 183 N.W.2d 657.
Briney is the defendant while Katko is the plaintiff. Plaintiff won in the trial court and the Briney’s appealed.
Question
To what extent can one claim defense of property as a privilege?
Rule
“No privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the infusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises.”
Holding
The verdict in the trial court stands. Force used in this situation was unreasonable. Judgement affirmed.
Facts
Defendant lived several miles away from a property they owned. This property contained an abondended barn which would often be broken into. To prevent breaking into the place, they would block windows with wood. However, break-ins would still occur. So, the defendants put up a spring loaded trap which would harm anyone who opened the door to one of the rooms. One day, the plaintiff broke into the property, opened the trapped door, and was shot in the leg. He suffered extensive injuries and sued.
Analysis
Life is greater than property. Therefore, a spring loaded gun was unreasonable to defend against the property. Because no life or limb was threatened towards the property owners, there was no defense to threaten the life of others.
Takeaway
This case considers the value of human life and the value of property.
It is important to note that the property was in a very remote location and had been vacant for some time.
The preservation of property wasn’t the house or the land, but it was old bottles and dated fruit jars. The defendant had taken several actions to prevent breaking into the house previously.
The Restatement of Torts says,
The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outfights the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises.
How then do you protect the property? Live there. Spend time there. Do anything you can to show that there are signs of life in the dwelling. Just don’t “trap” the property.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
