The right to self-defence

• Having established that everyone has a right not to be aggressed against, it logically follows that everyone has a right to defend themselves or others from aggressors.

What constitutes self-defence

• Self-defence allows for use proportionate (necessary and reasonable) physical force to repel an aggressor. Adherence to the 3L Philosophy does not require pacifism.
• Exactly what constitutes ‘necessary and reasonable’ self-defence is grounded in the local community’s standards of reasonableness, including a definition of the contours of what constitutes ‘excessive force’. For each case, a court (the jury) must opine on whether the defendant acted in accordance with this standard of reasonableness given the particular circumstances of the case.
• Determining the facts and achieving justice is unavoidably challenging, and one of many realities that a 3L society must face. This and other challenges are why the 3L Philosophy does not offer a utopia and why we must remain open-minded about better solutions.

Erroneous or inappropriate use of force

• Erroneous or inappropriate enforcement of the Legal Principle, i.e. when use of force like an arrest was not justified, may subject a person to civil liability, or even criminal liability in serious cases.
  • Example: If a homeowner uses a weapon against a child running across the homeowner’s garden to collect a stray ball, the homeowner has used ‘excessive force’, i.e. the homeowner‘s physical force is neither necessary nor reasonable, even though a trespass has taken place.

“Whether by force or deceit, self-defense, properly constituted at the moment of threat, trumps honest communication and due process at law. And due process at law trumps vigilantism and vengeance, just as honesty trumps deceit, when the threat is removed.”

Vinay Kolhatkar, ‘Being Truly Humane: The Four Orders of Humaneness’