Self-defense (self-defence primarily inCommonwealth English) is acountermeasure that involves defending thehealth and well-being of oneself fromharm.[1] The use of theright of self-defense as a legal justification for the use offorce in times of danger is available in manyjurisdictions.[2]
Physical self-defense is using physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence. Such force can be either armed or unarmed. In either case, the chances of success depend on various parameters, related to the severity of the threat on one hand, but also on the mental and physical preparedness of the defender.[3]
Manymartial arts styles are practiced for self-defense or include self-defense techniques. Some styles train primarily for self-defense, while othercombat sports can be effectively applied for self-defense. Some martial arts teach how to escape from a knife or gun situation or how to break away from a punch, while others teach how to attack. Many modern martial arts schools now use a combination of martial arts styles and techniques to provide more practical self-defense. They will often customize self-defense training to suit individual participants.[citation needed]
A wide variety ofweapons can be deployed defensively. The most suitable depends on the threat presented, the victim or victims, and the defender's experience. Legal restrictions also vary greatly and influence which self-defense options are available.[citation needed]
In some jurisdictions,firearms may be carriedopenly orconcealed expressly for this purpose. In contrast, other jurisdictions have tight restrictions on who can own firearms and what types they can own.Knives, especially those categorized asswitchblades, may also becontrolled, as maybatons,pepper spray and personalelectroshock weapons—although some may be legal to carry with a license or for certain professions.[citation needed]
Non-injurious water-based self-defense indelible dye-marker sprays, orID-marker orDNA-marker sprays linking a suspect to a crime scene, would in most places be legal to own and carry.[4]
Everyday objects (Some examples including:flashlights,baseball bats,newspapers,keyrings with keys,kitchen utensils,tools, andhair spray aerosol cans in combination with alighter) can also be used asimprovised weapons for self-defense.[5]
Verbal self-defense is defined as using words "to prevent,de-escalate, or end an attempted assault."[6]
According to Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics on Rainn, about "80 percent of juvenile victims were female and 90 percent of rape victims were adult women".[7] In addition, women from ages 18 to 34 are highly at risk to experience sexual assault. According to historian Wendy Rouse inHer Own Hero: The Origins of Women's Self-Defense Movement, women's self-defense training emerged in the early twentieth century in the United States and the United Kingdom, paralleling the women's rights and suffrage movement. These early feminists sought to raise awareness about the sexual harassment and violence that women faced on the street, at work, and in the home. They challenged the notion that men were their "natural protectors", noting that men were often the perpetrators ofviolence against women. Women discovered a sense of physical and personal empowerment through training in boxing and jiu-jitsu. Interest in women's self-defense paralleled subsequent waves of the women's rights movement, especially with the rise ofSecond-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s andThird-wave feminism in the 1990s.[8] Today's Empowerment Self-Defense (ESD) courses focus on teaching verbal, psychological, and physical self-defense strategies. ESD courses explore the multiple sources of gender-based violence, including its connections with sexism, racism, and classism. Empowerment Self-Defense instructors focus on holding perpetrators responsible while empowering women with the idea that they have the right and ability to protect themselves.[9][10][11][12]
Self-defense techniques and recommended behavior under the threat of violence are systematically taught in self-defense classes. Commercial self-defense education is part of themartial arts industry in the broader sense, and many martial arts instructors also give self-defense classes. While all martial arts training can be argued to have some self-defense applications, self-defense courses are marketed explicitly as being oriented towards effectiveness and optimized towards situations as they occur in the real world. Many systems are taught commercially, tailored to the needs of specific target audiences (e.g. defense against attempted rape for women, self-defense for children and teens). Notable systems taught commercially include:
In any given case, evaluating whether force was excessive can be difficult. Allowances for great force may be hard to reconcile with human rights.[citation needed]
The Intermediate People's Court ofFoshan,People's Republic of China in a 2009 case ruled the killing of a robber during his escape attempt to be justifiable self-defense because "the robbery was still in progress" at this time.[13]
In the United States between 2008 and 2012, approximately 1 out of every 38gun-related deaths (which includes murders, suicides, and accidental deaths) was a justifiable killing, according to theViolence Policy Center.[14]
InCanada, in criminal law, self-defense is a statutory defense that provides a complete defense to the commission of a criminal act. It operates as a justification, the successful application of which means that, owing to the circumstances in which the act was produced, it is not morally blameworthy. There are three elements an accused must demonstrate to raise self-defense successfully.[citation needed]
First, the accused must demonstrate that they believed on reasonable grounds that force would be used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person. The reasonableness of the belief is assessed through a subjective and objective lens. Certain beliefs, including racist beliefs and beliefs induced by self-intoxication, are prima facie unreasonable. Other beliefs related to the subjective experience of the accused may, however, be reasonable. These include any relevant military training (R v Khill), heightened awareness of patterns of cyclical violence in intimate relationships (R v Lavallée) and whether the accused has autism (R v Kagan).[15][16]
Second, the act that constitutes the offence is committed to defend or protect themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force.[citation needed]
Third, the act that constitutes the offence must have been reasonable. Many indicia factor into whether the act was reasonable in the circumstances. For one, was the violence or threat of violence imminent? Usually, if there is a significant time interval between the original unlawful assault and the accused's response, it undermines the contention that there were no other means available to respond to the potential use of force, and one tends to suspect that the accused was motivated by revenge rather than self-defense. However, R v Lavallée accepted expert evidence demonstrating that people experiencing battered women's syndrome have special knowledge about the cyclical nature of violence in a way that allows them to foresee when harm is coming. Second, it's relevant whether a reasonable avenue of escape was available to the accused. Under the old self-defense provision, there was a requirement for the accused to have believed on reasonable grounds that there was no alternative course of action open to him at the time, so that he reasonably thought that he was obliged to kill to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. Now, even though 34(2)(b) is only one consideration in a non-exhaustive list, the mandatory role it used to play in the common law suggests it carries considerable weight in determining the reasonableness of the act in the circumstances under 34(1)(c) As such, while there is no absolute duty to retreat, it is a prerequisite to the defense that no other legal means of responding are available. In other words, there may be an obligation to do retreat where there is an option to do so (R v Cain).[17] However, there is an exception to the obligation to retreat which is there is no requirement to flee from your own home to escape an assault to raise self-defense (R v Forde).[18] Moreover, evidence of the accused suffering from battered women's syndrome may evince that the accused reasonably perceived there to have been no means of escape (R v Lavallée). Third, the accused's role in the incident may play into the reasonableness of their act. Consideration of the accused's role is not limited to whether he did any provocative or unlawful acts, as it was under the old self-defense provisions (R v Khill). Fourth, the nature and proportionality of the accused's response will determine whether it was reasonable. While a person is not expected to weigh to a nicety the measure of force used to respond to violence or a threat thereof, grossly disproportionate force will tend to be unreasonable (R v Kong).[19]
Armed self-defense
Unarmed self-defense
Legal and moral aspects
Media related toSelf-defense at Wikimedia Commons
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
