Product Code Database
is sold to the public in Japan (2009).]] Self-defense ( self-defence primarily in Commonwealth English) is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. Dictionary.com's Definition of "Self-Defense". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved on 2 June 2012. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many .
In some jurisdictions, firearms may be carried openly or Concealed carry expressly for this purpose. In contrast, other jurisdictions have tight restrictions on who can own firearms and what types they can own. knife, especially those categorized as , may also be controlled, as may batons, pepper spray and personal electroshock weapons—although some may be legal to carry with a license or for certain professions.
Non-injurious water-based self-defense indelible dye-marker sprays, or ID-marker or SelectaDNA sprays linking a suspect to a crime scene, would in most places be legal to own and carry. Branded a criminal – Red Offender spray is rolled out at Canterbury's nightspots (KentOnLine.co.uk, 13 May 2010). Retrieved on 5 August 2012.
Everyday objects (Some examples including: Maglite, baseball bats, Millwall brick, Keychain with keys, kitchen utensils, tools, and aerosol can in combination with a lighter) can also be used as improvised weapons for self-defense. Self-Defense With Everyday Objects August 16, 2017. Arkady Bukh
/ref> 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.
The Intermediate People's Court of Foshan, 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. Are There Limits to Self-Defense? Beijing Review, 28 April 2009.
In the United States between 2008 and 2012, approximately 1 out of every 38 gun-related deaths (which includes murders, suicides, and accidental deaths) was a justifiable killing, according to the Violence Policy Center.
In Canada, 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.
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). R. v. Kagan (P.D.), 2007 NSSC 215 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 Supreme Court of Canada
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.
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). R. v. Cain, 2011 ONCA 298 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). R. v. Forde (S.C.), (2011) 285 O.A.C. 77 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). R. v. Kong 2006 SCC 40.
Unarmed self-defense
Legal and moral aspects
|
|
