Talk:Right of self-defense

message: There is no mention here of the universal religious prohibition against killing. Although many religions today condone self-defense, they all seem to contradict the apparently absolute condemnations from Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi, not to mention the immense literature dedicated to pacifism and non-violence that implicitly contradicts or qualifies the right to self-defense.
The other omitted problem is that the definition of self-defense varies from state to state, and from person to person, especially among those who are undergoing some form of stress. 
It is hard to think of a war that was not started for reasons of self-defense. This calls for a section on the common misuse of the doctrine.
Could the right of self-defense be a shibboleth like war itself, an ancient and very convenient belief that has gone on too far without critical examination? 04:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the challenges to the right of self-defense? 

message: To the person that removes mentions of statute law repeatedly: in countries based on civil law, statute law states that self-defense and defense of others are acceptable legal excuses provided that the means of defense used are proportional to the offense (however, typically, what is meant by "means proportional to the offense" is typically left for courts to decide).
By the way, you're not supposed to repeatedly remove content without at least some discussion on the talk page. David.Monniaux 05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense? 

message: This article seems a little unclear to me. For one, the right to self-defence in the united states is generaly understood to be an exercise of your right to life, just like publishing a news paper is an exercise of your right to free speech; I don't see this mentioned in the article. In general, the article gives the impression that self-defence is a result of governments not doing a great job of defending the population, leaving the people to fend for themselves. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Dullfig 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about the general principle and does not refer to individual countries. Your point would be relevant to self-defense (United States) when you could epxlore the constitutional issues relevant only to the U.S. And people have always been allowed to defend themselves no matter how effeicient the government, because the government cannot be everywhere all the time. David91 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-defence and the Right to Life

message: In some jurisdictions, the aggressor may lose the ability to argue self-defense by speaking provocative words.  See, e.g., Vaughn v. State, 17 Ala. App. 383, 84 So. 879 (1920); Wheatley v. State, 93 Ark. 409, 125 S.W. 414 (1910); People v. Barnard, 208 Ill. App. 3d 342, 567 N.E.2d 60 (mere words enough), appeal denied, 139 Ill. 2d 598, 575 N.E.2d  917, 159 Ill. Dec. 110 (1991); McCarty v. Commonwealth, 244 Ky. 413, 51 S.W.2d 249 (1932); State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1043 (Mo. 1924); State v. Council, 129 S.C. 116, 123 S.E. 788 (1924); Smith v. State, 965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Scott v. Commonwealth, 143 Va. 510, 129 S.E. 360  (1925). THF 10:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... 🤔 Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting words 

message: As Make My Day State is largely unreferenced, I'm not sure about merging it into Self-defense, which itself needs a lot of improvement. As this article seems like the best umbrella article, I think Make My Day State should be merged into this one. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for merger of Make My Day State 

message: I found this after noticing that, until a few minutes ago, there was no article on the "right of self-defense."
I moved this article there because it isn't as common to call it a "theory."
 
*"theory of self-defense" 
*"right of self-defense" 
*"right to self-defense" 
Without renaming it, it would be impossible to integrate this article with the  template and the  template. Otherwise, I would've had to create "right of self-defense," as a separate article, which would've basically been a silly POV fork. There's no reason to create a new article when this one right here is already a mess. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article moved from [[Self-defense (theory)]] 

message: I'd like to get to work merging the following articles into this one:
*Right to bear arms
*Make My Day Law
*Make My Day State
I was going to just expand this article and merge those last two POV forks into this one, but then it occurred to me that it would be impossible for me to expand this article in a way that wouldn't be redundant.
Since the broader topic is the "right of self-defense," and the right to bear arms is just a small sub-set of that, then this article should be larger than Right to bear arms, but right now it's the other way around.
Much of the content in Right to bear arms isn't just discussing the right to bear arms, but the right of self-defense overall. I.E., English common law and John Locke didn't just argue for people to have the right to own weapons, but the broader right to defend themselves, which was why they had the right weapons. So, Right to bear arms should be a sub-section (or perhaps a description in the lead?) while all of the information in Right to bear arms should be merged here. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bearing arm(s) has a different meaning than Right to bear arms.   Bearing arms can refer to hunting or poaching, or simply carrying a weapon, as well as being a euphemism for serving in military service.  In contrast, Right to bear arms refers to the right of self-preservation and self-defense.  A Right to bear arms never implies a right to hunt or poach, or a right to serve in the military. Yaf (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yaf, Your opinion runs contrary to Joyce Lee Malcolm, plus many others.  Could you point to your sourcing please?  Thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Malcolm does not advocate a right to poach.  Nor does Malcolm advocate a right that one  must be accepted into the military.  You misinterpret Malcolm. Yaf (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Malcolm, if you were a Protestant, under a Catholic King, in late 17th Century England, yes the right to bear arms meant that you had a right to belong to the militia.  And, also per Malcolm, the disarmament that lead to the Bill of Rights of 1689 had very much to do with the gentry not wanting the commoners using their militia weapons (and gunpowder) to hunt for meat on their 'privileged' land.  Have you read the Malcolm book?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said previously, you are misinterpreting Malcolm.  Restoration of the Right to Bear Arms for Protestants did not suddenly give all Protestants the right to poach on a manor's game.  And, in late 17th Century England, the Right to Bear Arms meant that you had the right to be armed to serve in the militia, not that the muster captain had to take you.  You are misinterpreting the concept of "Right" and the point of the "Right".  Yaf (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please identify the page number and quote, I would like to read that for myself, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See also this study by the historian John Kenneth Rowland which analyzes 300 usages of the term 'bear arms' in the historical documents from 1618-1791 and found  the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military.  I acknowledge that there may be a tiny fraction of 18th Century usage that are ambiguous or 'individual', and you see some POV legal scholars and at least one Judge (Sam Cummings) point this out.  But, among historians, the consensus is quite clear, 'bear arms' to the founding fathers, implied military.  Read the list of historians, all professors at major universities, giving support to the Heller brief: Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer, Fred Anderson, Carol Berkin, Paul Finkelman, R. Don Higginbotham, Stanley N. Katz, Pauline R. Maier, Peter S. Onuf, Robert E. Shalhope, John Shy and Alan Taylor.   Read the Declaration of Independence usage of 'bear arms', Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms, as conscripts (deck hands) on warships, certainly prohibited from touching a gun or gun powder by the British naval officers in charge, and most certainly not for self-defense.  Again, I acknowledge a need to disambiguate this, but to merge?  A strong no.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you mention what you are reading to get the idea that English Common Law was this basis?  Have you read the book by Joyce Lee Malcolm, it states otherwise.  The 'right' to bear arms came from the Glorious Revolution.  Prior to that it was a 'duty'.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you point to your sourcing of this idea?  I don't think that, from a scholarly perspective, that 'the right to bear arms' equates with 'gun rights'.  This is a modern political concept, and is only half the POV.  Very little sourcing from historians says this.  You need to look to legal scholars (and only the half that are advocating that POV), and political editorials (again, only those advocating that political POV) to find this idea.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right to bear arms does not apply strictly to gun rights.  There are all sorts of weapons to which it applies. That is the reason that in many states, the terminology of CCW (Carrying Concealed Weapon) is used, instead of Concealed Handgun License (which is also used in other states.)  An article on Right to bear arms needs to include the full range of weapons, not just guns. Yaf (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you could point to the WP:V sources forming the basis of your opinion, thanks.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As for the other two articles, I'm more neutral - they could be merged here, but I feel they have enough content to stand on their own as well. If they are to be merged, you might want to think about merging Castle Doctrine as well - to my (limited) understanding, it seems to be describing exactly the same thing as the Make My Day Law, or certainly something very similar. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: 28-March-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first level super section headings are not used in WP or talk pages. The date-time stamps give the years. Editors can use search functions to find topics by name, rather than by year.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrofit topic-year headers

message: "In all but one U.S. jurisdiction, using deadly force against a robber or burglar who is attempting to escape with property is likewise not justifiable (Texas is the only exception and holds the defendant to a high burden of proof that the action was the only means available to recover the property without a serious risk of death or serious injury)."
I do not believe this is strictly correct. For example, New Jersey clearly provides for the use of force, and even deadly force, in defense of personal property. To be sure, there are limitations, but the fact remains that deadly force is a legal option. See, New Jersey Statues 2C:3-4, 2C:3-6, 2C:3-9, available from the New Jersey Legislature site, http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/
Ampermc (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Status of Self-Defense

message: Here's an interesting topic that I haven't seen covered very much and not in this article. Is there an exception to right of self-defense where police are involved? That is to say, if a person uses deadly force against a civilian who wields a sidearm against them, that is considered to fall under the right of self-defense. Does the same right apply if a person uses deadly force against a police officer who wields a sidearm against them? From this article and the sources I have seen, no distinction is made, but I have never heard of a successful claim of self-defense in this situation. Can something on this be added to the article? If such an exception or special case does exist it should be noted. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Defense Involving Police - Same Rules or An Exception to the Right of Self Defense? 

message: There doesn't seem to be an article about this, but the situation in Germany is very different. Unknown to many, there is little to no comparison being done between the crime committed and the action taken as a self defense. You have to take the least aggressive defense if you have multiple options. But note this:
* you have the right to stand your ground, and flight never counts as a viable defense
* if you have a defense that helps for sure and a softer one that's doubtful, you may always use the sure one
* the only time when you have to restrict yourself is for bagatelles
* the self defense extends to all crimes committed against you or others (but not against the public)
* even deadly force is permitted for anything that's not completely negligible 
For example you may shoot thieves of your wallet who are running away, if that's currently the only way to stop them. The general theme is: "Justice never needs to yield to Injustice" and "in doubt for the defender". German law influenced a lot of other laws so I wonder if there is more countries like this. Maybe someone with a background in law can do some research. The respective laws are StGB 32 and StGB 33 to give a starting point.
--87.162.222.77 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation in Germany 

message: I have placed this tag on this article because it has absolutly no intext refs.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unref tag 

message: I found the international law stub imminent threat which I added to include the context of the term, namely self-defence in international law. Because of this I was more or less at a loss what to do: should this topic be brought under the banner of right of self-defense or should a new topic be created? Marxmorley (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-defence in international law

message: Hi. I want to share a brief story.
In 4th grade, there was some terrible bullying. This guy kept trying to cause his victim much harm. He once stole a tuque from him, and, as a result, he got chased, and the victim shoved him to the ground, and forced him to give the tuque back.
Then, there was a much more serious episode. This time, he grabbed the victim's hair, and attempted to get a spark on his lighter, so he could set the victim's hair on fire. It never happened, but, I think it was attempted murder.
Anyways, those are just a few examples. One day, the victim got tired of this guy's bullying, and turned to violence. Now, this is important to know, that the bully was at least twice his victim's size. Guess who got easily dominated? The bully. The victim was so enraged, he had no control of his emotions, whatsoever. Sure, the victim got into most trouble with the school faculty, but, not with his parents.
Everything peaceful was tried (Except for calling the Police - the victim didn't want it to go that far.), and it didn't work, so, violence was an option. That's what the victim did, and, well, he never got bullied at that school, again.
Quick question about this. Was it 100% legal? Or, could the victim have been charged? If so, for what, and why?
Thanks, for reading. --208.96.121.65 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were in fourth grade. Fourth graders aren't usually "charged" with anything, especially over a school fight.65.0.171.189 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  True story about self-defense (Bullying victim attacked his bully) 

message: "Most courts have ruled that such a defense cannot be used to protect friends or family members who have engaged in an illegal fight. Likewise, one cannot use this to aid a criminal."
This looks like it should be removed from the article.
I am at a loss to understand what exactly is meant by "illegal fight" and I doubt many can do better. Without a reference to clarify meaning or reason I believe that the statement too ambiguous and vague to be of use to the reader.
The second statement is too general to be true. "Criminal" [n] has a very broad definition. It might be better written as "to assist in a criminal act" but even that would be pointless as (knowingly) assisting in a criminal act is, assuming you pick a reasonable definition, often illegal irrespective of how. It's redundant in the same way that it would be redundant to state that murdering someone with an axe is illegal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  82.12.161.116  (talk • contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These are poorly worded, but I think the intent here is that you can't justify e.g. defending your brother who has just mugged somebody, but lost the upper hand.  Some jurisdictions also regulate street fighting, boxing, etc., so they could define 'illegal fights'. 70.20.62.124 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, that's probably possible. still better have references when it comes to law... I would completely find it normal if it was the other way around, so I can't be sure. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove junk?

message: I was hoping this article which I found by typing "self defence law" into Wikipedia's search box would tell me more about this law which is apparently used as a defence in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unfortuantely I cannot find anything? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida's self-defence law? 

message: I agree with comments that, given the title, the article is far too US-centric. There is another article - Self-defence in international law - but that is too brief to reflect the current international controversy. Some of the classic international examples of claimed self-defence and US involvement on the international arena are perhaps inadequately addressed or referenced in both articles, such as:
* the US intervention in Iraq in 2003
* the Cuban missile crisis
* the Israeli invasions of Syria and Egypt in April and June 1967 respectively
* The invasion of Nicaragua
* the Osirak reactor destruction
* the South African invasion of Angola
Further, the concept of "Anticipatory self-defence" is not addressed, while existing articles such as "Preemptive war", "Self-defence in English law" and the "Bush doctrine" are not referenced. The title seems to me to be very "high-level" requiring referencing to sub-categories such as those mentioned. The current article could perhaps be renamed to reflect its focus.
Since I am very new here, I ask for some education as to how these issues are customarily addressed. Enquiringeric (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: This is a complete mishmosh. It reads like a term paper begun eight hours before it is due. Could somebody who is a good and careful writer start over? Perhaps start by deciding on the points they want to make?
50.0.36.122 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: User:Someone who's wrong on the internet proposed merging son assault demesne into this article, but neglected to begin a discussion at either article.  Since the "discuss" link leads here, I'm starting it here.  Son assault demesne is described as a plea entered to justify (i.e., as a defense to the charge of) an act of assault and battery.  I think that it makes good sense to cover it together with other self-defense related arguments.  However, this article is in need of substantial cleanup, while son assault demesne is in relatively good order, if a bit brief.  I would recommend cleaning it up before merging son assault demesne here, because otherwise this article will be even more of a mess, and harder for readers to navigate.  If someone is willing to undertake that task, then I would support a merger after this article is put into a better state.
I also suggest that son assault demesne could stand to be reworded, both to make it a little clearer, and so that it's not entirely or almost entirely quoted from a nineteenth-century legal dictionary.  Some nineteenth-century prose is excellent, but that doesn't strike me as the case with son assault demesne, and I dislike using attribution templates alluding to the incorporation of language from public domain sources, because then if anybody edits the text, it becomes unclear what is quoted and what is not.  Better to reword long passages for clarity, even if they're still cited to the same source—which is fine—and mark exact quotations using quotation marks or block paragraphs within non-quoted text.   P Aculeius (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this simply; feel free to improve at the target; not that merge templates assist with maintaining attribution.  Klbrain (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge ''[[son assault demesne]]'' into this article 

message: I propose the name of the page should be moved to "Right of self-defense (United-States)" due to the US-centric information found on this page. Once the name is moved, it would be beneficial to add self-defense on a global scale with United States involvement. @Enquiringeric mentioned a few topics that could be added to this section. Greenthumb7 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving name of page to "Right of self-defense (United States)"  

message: *. One might argue this example belongs to page Self-defence in international law (rather than to this page), because it is about the right of countries, rather than individuals or the general concept. But then it needs to be framed as an example of usage of international law. But I would argue this is an extremely poor (too complicated) example to clarify the concept. This is a controversy that needs a significant space to explain. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal