River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-11-20
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
The Right Of Self Defense
e. Walter K. Towers, a. g., J. D., of the
Michigan Bar.

John Ric fell into a dispute with
Loren Devlin which rose TO point
where K. &c rushed upon Devlin and
Struck at him, though he failed TO
touch him Thus ass aulted Devlin
* vigorous action and proceeded
t. .,ound Rice into a state of insen-
sibility The puolic prosecutor pro-
ceeded against Deylin in a criminal
action for assault and battery, and
he was found guilty and fined,
Rice also sued Deylin in a civil
action for assault and battery and
recovered damages, Devlin claimed
he acted only in sell @efensd.
Waile there is right of self de
Tense recognized by law it is not
broad enough TO cover an action
such as Devlin's. One whose per-
son is assaulted may defend him
self; but in defending himself he
may not use more force then is rea-
SJnably necessary under the circum-
stances, If you are assaulted you
may strike back, but you may not
strike back more vigorously than is
necessary to defend your person
fir IN the threatened attack. In this
C,~e Devlin was justified in resist
ing Rice. Rice nav ing been resist
ed, and having ceased to attack,
however, Devlin was not justified in
continuing further. In doing SO he
became the assailant, and his fur
Their action was a new assault and
battery for which he was liable both
in civil sui for damages and in a
criminal action. The law does not
require that the vigor of the defense
b. absolutely adjusted to the yigor
Of the attack, since it recognizes
that this is not always possible of
accurate determination. 1t is re-
quired, however, that the defender
do not step beyond the bounds of
reason in his acts of defense.
AS the New York Court has re-
marked:
Self defense is a primary law of
nature, and it is ar excuse for
breaches of the peace, and even for
homicide itself But care must be
taken that the resistance does not
exceed the bounds of mere defence,
prevention, or recovery, SO as to be.
come vindictive; for then the de-
fender would himself become the
aggressor. The force used must
not exceed the necessity of the
case
To justify the use Of force on the
ground that it was in self defense
there must have been an actual at
tempt to offer bodily harm The
attack resisted must be apparently
real. Self defense may not be
claimed when the force was exerte6
after the danger of attack had pass
ed. The threatened assault having
passed, there is no longer any need
of self defense.
The means that a person may
take in his own defense must de-
pend, of course, upon the particula ar
danger which threatens A degree
of force may be used in self defense
equal to the degree of force with
which the defender is attacked.
Killing an assailant may even be-
come justifable by the way of self
defense, especially where he attacks
with deadly weapon.
O'Malley and Grady had had
manylquarrels and finally one arose
which was particularly bitter.
Grady vigorously threatened to kill
his adversary on sight. Later in
the day they met and Grady at once
assaulted O'Malley with a large
club dealing him several serious
blows about the head. Unable to
ward off these blows, O'Malley
drew his pistol and fired, killing
Grady He was tried on the charge
of manslaughter, but held not
guilty, the jury finding that he had
acted in reasonable sell defense.
As general rule one may kill an
assailant when it is apparently nee
essary in order to save himself from
death or great bodily harm, while
in the midst of a sudden combat
which he has not him self provoked.
Generally speaking, the law requires
that the person attacked retreat, il
possible, before he may kill an as