What Makes A Self-Defense Claim Successful?
We hear about self-defense claims all the time - in high-profile court cases, across social media, and in popular culture – particularly in the Law & Order universes. What they all have in common is this: they’re usually, if not always, wrong to some degree.
Whenever I see a fictional self-defense claim, I’m reminded of the classic Monty Python sketch: a sergeant training his men in self-defense ends by saying, “Come at me with that pointed stick!” When the soldier does, he pulls out a gun and shoots him. “You shot him,” another soldier yells. “Of course I did,” the sergeant replies, “he was attacking me with a pointed stick!”
That may well stand for Hollywood’s full understanding of self-defense.
Washington State’s Self-Defense Statute
What Makes Self-Defense, Self-Defense
In Washington State, the standards for a valid self-defense claim are based on both long-established case law and Washington state law.
Here are the key elements that must be present for a successful self-defense claim:
- Reasonable Belief of Imminent Harm: The person claiming self-defense must reasonably believe they or another person are in imminent danger. That belief must be based on the circumstances as they appeared at the time.
- Proportional Force: The force used must be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. In other words, the law only recognizes an amount of force necessary to prevent or stop the threatened harm.
- Duty to Retreat (if safe): In most situations, the person claiming self-defense must make a reasonable attempt to retreat or escape the danger - if it was safely possible. However, there is no duty to retreat if the person is being attacked in their own home or place of employment.
- No Provocation: The person claiming self-defense must not have provoked or instigated the confrontation in the first place.
- Lawful Presence: The person claiming self-defense must have been lawfully present at the location where the incident occurred.
- Reasonable Apprehension: The person must have had a reasonable apprehension of great personal injury or death if they did not act.
Obviously, then, there is no one standard that fits all self-defense claims. Every self-defense claim is evaluated based solely on the circumstances that lead to the incident. Solely. The person asserting self-defense is judged from the perspective of ‘what would a reasonable person in the same situation do.’
Please note that the use of deadly force while defending oneself subject to much stricter standards. In general, deadly force is only justified if the person reasonably believed that they or another person were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Self-Defense Claims in Practice
First, foremost, anyone who engages in self-defense, regardless of the circumstances, should know that they will almost certainly be arrested – if the altercation is still going on when the police arrive. The charge will be with assault or disorderly conduct, depending on the circumstances.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. What that means is relatively simple: an affirmative defense means that the defendant admits to committing the alleged act – assault, disorderly conduct – while arguing that they should not be held criminally liable because the action was justified or should be excused under the law.
In other words, the defendant is saying, ‘Yes, I [the action goes here] did that but only after I was attacked . . . I had to fight back or I would have been severely harmed.’
Then, it is up to us – Knauss Law Firm – to tell the story, backed by the evidence proving that acting in self-defense was our client’s only option.
At that, we have been singularly successful.