Should there be a limit to the level of force used in self defense?

as the part of my post you clipped said, how you describe it matters, let a lawyer handle it

and I agree with the rest

 

yes, it's not a 'yes or no', it's a 'it depends', as I said

I think we have to remember, Adrenalin goes up, fight or flight kicks in, if one commits a felony against another, they are responsible for that as had they not did what they did, would have been no issue

 

Sorry, but it depends on what you mean by 'attack'. Criticize her virtue in public? Physically push her out of line in queue? Slap her (as per a previous example)?

All of the above are unconscionable BTW but they don't in and of themselves, as stand alone events warrant the use of lethal force. Doing so could and should result in criminal charges. Repeating the obvious - the force every citizen uses to defend themselves or others HAS to be proportionate to the threat. Take that principal away and anyone can claim 'self defense' on the least of provocations.

I'm absolutely sure you would put your life on the line to defend your wife's life (as would I for my wife.) But I guarantee you she would not want you putting your own freedom in jeopardy or even seriously harming another individual over a minor physical altercation. (Oh I'm sure she would want the a**s*h*l*s head on a platter metaphorically but that's a different thing entirely to actually doing it.)

 

What you said goes without saying.
Just saying.

 

Alright you've got a good point. You can't shoot a little old lady or toddler who slaps you. But as for my response being proportionate to the perceived threat let me give you another example.

Im a grown man, lets say another grown man slaps me and I punch him. I should be perfectly justified in that since he slapped me first and I am responding with a proportionate level of force in such a situation. We're both grown men and we're both not using any weapons. If I were to shoot the man after he slapped me I can see how that would not be justified as I would be using a weapon when he's not. However, if I were to punch him and if that stopped him, my punch knocks him to the ground and he doesn't get back up and come at me again, if at that point I did not continue to beat on him then as I said, I should be perfectly justified. My response was proportionate and I stopped when he stopped.

 

Yes the amount of forced used has to be proportionate to the threat and that may well involve more force (or at least the threat to use more force) than the attacker has used. So punching someone who slapped you (all other things being would almost certainly be regarded as reasonable. Provided of course you ceased punching he moment he ceases his attacks and backs off.

To many people end up being charged with criminal offenses because they get involved in a fight with someone and after the other person ceases to resist they keep going - you know punching/kicking /whatever even though the assailant is no longer a threat and may even be lying on the ground. They lose emotional control. I've seen it a lot. You have probably as well.