Скачать или смотреть When is Physical Force Justified in Self-Defense? | Huss Law - PLLC

A common question people ask is when is a person justified to use physical force in self-defense. A.R.S. 13-404 defines the justification defense use of physical force. As long as one is reasonably protecting themselves, there should be no issues. However, situations starting out as self-defense but escalating into going too far are generally where the intercession with the criminal justice system occurs.

According to A.R.S. 13-404(A), a person is justified in threatening or using physical force when circumstances reasonably allow it. And, if a reasonable person believes physical force is immediately necessary against another's use or attempted use of unlawful force. This situation is not generally a difficult circumstance to understand. A reasonable person using physical force to combat attempted use or use of unlawful physical force seems pretty basic and easy to understand. Justifying behavior through a "reasonable person" standard becomes more difficult when a situation starts out as self-defense but escalates. For instance, a person protecting himself beats the aggressor to the point of serious physical injury. A person may only use force to the extent it dispels the danger. A person going from victim to aggressor does not give that person license to do whatever they desire.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 13-404(B), the threat or use of physical force is not justified in the following situations:
(1) In response to verbal provocation; or (2) To resist an arrest the person should know is made by a peace officer whether the arrest is lawful or not, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or (3) If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, UNLESS: (A) the person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates intent believing he cannot safely withdraw; AND (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

Specifically, a person is not justified in using physical force or acting in self-defense in these scenarios. It is important to note that self-defense (and most concepts in the law) are based on a "reasonable person" standard.

Words alone are not adequate provocation for use of physical force. It does not matter how much a person offends another, unless there is some threat or act of physical force, words are never adequate provocation. Rather, a "reasonable" person must believe physical force is immediately necessary. But, can't another's imminent threats support a belief that physical force is necessary? Indeed it can. However, as the statute clearly states, physical force is not justified "[i]n response to verbal provocation alone." On the contrary, if threatening words accompany movements that could be construed as causing imminent harm, a person is justified in using physical force. But it is important to note, words alone are not adequate provocation to justify use of physical force.

A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest made by a peace officer, regardless of whether it is a lawful arrest. This concept seems fairly easy. However, there are many citizens who believe they should fight an arrest they do not deem lawful. It is always the better practice to fight a case from the courtroom rather than on the street with the police. Police may be justified due to circumstances they are aware of. And a person generally does themself no favors attempting to physically fight the police. However, as A.R.S. 13-404(B)(2) indicates, physical force would be justified if a peace officer exceeds the amount of force allowed by law.

A person cannot use physical force against another if the person provoked the other's use of physical force. However, an exception exists IF: (1) the person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates intent to; AND (2) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person. Simply put, a person cannot instigate/provoke another person into using physical force, and then assert self-defense. However, a different situation arises if a person provokes another but then withdraws and clearly communicates intent to withdraw. Here, if one withdraws but the other continues, the withdrawing person may use physical force in self-defense.

In this video, Arizona's Best Criminal Defense Attorney Jeremy L. Huss of Huss Law, PLLC discusses when physical force is justified in Arizona.

Keywords,
When is Physical Force Justified in Self-Defense? | Huss Law - PLLC, When is Physical Force Justified in Self-Defense?,Physical Force Justified in Self-Defense,Huss Law - PLLC,when is physical force justified in self-defense? | huss law - pllc,when is physical force justified in self-defense?,physical force justified in self-defense,Huss Law,PLLC,justified in self-defense,lawyer,self defense,attorney,physical force,pllc,huss law pllc,pllc vs llc,huss law - jeremy huss