self-defence

from WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)
self-defence
    n 1: the act of defending yourself [syn: {self-defense}, {self-
         defence}, {self-protection}]
    
from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Self-defence \Self`-de*fence"\, n.
   See {Self-defense}.
   [1913 Webster]
    
from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
SELF-DEFENCE, crim. law. The right to protect one's person and property from 
injury. 
     2. It will be proper to consider, 1. The extent of the right of self-
defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what 
causes.  
     3.-1. As to the extent of the right, it may be laid down, first, that 
when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to 
use all, prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for 
example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent 
an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it 
should be closed, in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in 
such case be held to bail for his good behaviour; secondly, if, after having 
taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may 
undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the 
pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or 
hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; as, if a person unarmed 
enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any 
one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and 
there are a number of persons present, who may easily secure him, no one 
will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to 
be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is 
made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain 
to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed 
to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use 
the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his 
life. For homicide may be excused, se defendendo, where a man has no other 
probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him, while in the 
commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel, he beats him, so that 
he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. Hawk. bk. 2, c. 11, s. 13. And 
the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of 
society or of the commonwealth, and, being unprotected by law, he reassumes 
his natural rights, which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to 
protect himself. Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 1, tit. 1, n. 210. See Pamph. Rep. 
of Selfridge's Trial in 1806 2 Swift's Ev. 283. 
     4.-2. The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law 
further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the 
near relations of husband and wife, patent and child, and master and 
servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his 
relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful 
for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the 
passions of the human mind, and makes, it lawful in him, when external 
violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a 
connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, 
and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. 2 Roll. Ab. 
546; 1 Chit. Pr. 592. 
     5.-3. The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several 
persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed 
although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, 
if by his presence and his acts, he has aided the assailant. See Conspiracy. 
     6.-4. The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; 
first, when a felony is attempted, and, secondly, when, no felony is 
attempted or apprehended. 
     7.-1st. A man may defend himself, and even commit a homicide for the 
prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would 
amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, 
wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. 1 East, P. C. 271; 4 
Bl. Com. 180. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, 
property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or 
endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as 
murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is 
not required to retreat, but he may resist, and even pursue his adversary, 
until he has secured himself from all danger. 
     8.-2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or 
attempted; 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no 
mutual combat; as, where one meets another and attempts to commit or does 
commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend 
himself; and an offer or, attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near, 
so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is 
not required to wait until he has been struck. Bull. N. P. 18; 2 Roll. Ab. 
547. 2. When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel. In these cases 
both parties are the aggressors; and if in the fight one is killed it will 
be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. 
That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, 
and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his 
adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction. 
     9. A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the 
attack kill them, but not afterwards. 1 Car. & P. 106; 13 John. 312; 10 
John. 365. 
     10. As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if 
he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete 
remedy, See Assault; Battery; Necessity; Trespass. 
    

[email protected]