Self-Defense Explained: Reasonable, Proportionate, Imminent Threat

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly one in ten violent crimes involves a self-defense claim. Self-defense laws give people the right to protect themselves, others, or their property from imminent harm. However, the law sets limits. The response must be reasonable, the level of force must match the threat, and the danger must be immediate.

At The Law Offices of Frances Prizzia, our criminal defense lawyers help clients accused of violent offenses explore self-defense as a possible legal justification under California criminal law. We may try to prove that your actions were necessary to prevent injury or great bodily harm.

Understanding Self-Defense in Criminal Law

Under criminal law, self-defense is a legal justification for using force to protect oneself or another person. It applies when someone faces an unlawful physical force or a threat of imminent harm. The law allows a person to respond when waiting could result in serious injury or death. However, the force used must be proportionate to the threat. Excessive or deadly force may constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liability.

Every state has its own statutory laws and guidelines for self-defense cases. California, for example, recognizes both self-defense and defense of others. Courts evaluate whether a person acted with reasonable apprehension and used only the necessary amount of force. Criminal defense attorneys help clients present evidence—such as surveillance footage, witness statements, or medical records—to support their right to self-defense.

Legal Elements of a Valid Self-Defense Claim

Courts evaluate several legal factors to decide if a self-defense claim is valid. These include whether the person used reasonable force, believed danger was imminent, and acted out of necessity. A valid self-defense case shows that the response matched the threat and was not an act of revenge or unlawful aggression. At The Law Offices of Frances Prizzia, we build strong legal defenses based on these core principles.

Reasonable Belief of Danger

To claim self-defense, a person must genuinely and reasonably believe they are in danger of injury or death. This belief must come from what a normal human would feel in the same situation. Whether the threat comes from a perpetrator breaking into a residence, a forcible felony, or a violent act in a vehicle, the fear must be reasonable.

We show how the victim’s belief connects to the facts of the case, using evidence such as surveillance footage, witness statements, or police officer reports. Our criminal defense attorneys explain this necessity to the jury and argue that our client’s reaction was justified under criminal law. The prosecution carries the burden of proof to show that the defendant’s fear was not reasonable or immediate.

Proportionate Use of Force

The level of force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat faced. If someone responds with deadly force when only minor harm was likely, the defense may not hold. Courts expect the defendant to use only the amount of force necessary to stop the attack or prevent great bodily harm.

For example, using a wrench or other tool to stop an armed perpetrator may be justified if the victim faced a serious threat. However, using an illegal handgun when the threat could have been avoided might lead to additional charges. We help clients explain their response, showing that their actions were controlled and necessary, not excessive.

Imminent Threat Requirement

The threat must be immediate and unavoidable for self-defense to apply. Courts use the term “imminent” to describe danger that requires instant action. Waiting or trying to retreat might not be possible when the aggressor is about to cause harm.

The law does not protect actions taken long after the danger has passed. Our lawyers review every detail—from timing to physical ability—to show that our client acted only when there was no other safe option. We present this evidence clearly to the jury to establish that the threat was imminent and that our client’s actions were lawful.

What Makes Force “Reasonable” in Self-Defense?

Courts determine what counts as reasonable force by examining the situation from the accused person’s point of view. They also consider what a typical person would have done in the same position. We work to show that our client acted logically, under pressure, and only to prevent further harm.

Objective vs. Subjective Standard

The court uses both objective and subjective standards when judging reasonableness. The objective standard asks what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. The subjective standard considers the defendant’s own experience, perception, and physical ability at the moment.

For instance, a smaller victim facing multiple attackers might reasonably use greater force to protect themselves. We explain this difference to the jury and ensure that both perspectives are fairly weighed. Through skilled representation, we help the court see the human side of every case and the fear that led to the client’s reaction.

Factors Affecting Reasonableness

Many factors influence what the court considers reasonable in self-defense cases. These include:

• The size and strength differences between the victim and the perpetrator.
• The number of attackers or weapons involved.
• Whether the incident occurred in a residence, vehicle, or public space.
• The presence of unlawful acts, such as a forcible felony or an illegal handgun.

We also highlight relevant landmark cases, the influence of stand-your-ground laws, and duty-to-retract laws. Our attorneys use evidence, including surveillance footage, the position of the windshield wipers, and objects like a wrench, to show the connection between the threat and our client’s defensive actions. When necessary, we cite the castle doctrine and other legal defenses upheld by the Court of Appeals to strengthen our client’s case.

When Self-Defense Becomes Excessive Force

Self-defense can become unlawful when the force used goes beyond what the situation requires. Continuing to strike after the threat has stopped or using deadly force when unnecessary may turn a defense into a criminal charge. Courts examine whether the victim acted out of necessity or out of anger once the danger had passed. At The Law Offices of Frances Prizzia, we help clients accused of excessive force show that they intended to protect, not to harm.

If an individual continues to attack after the threat subsides, prosecutors may file battery or assault charges. Even when an affirmative defense like self-defense applies, it can fail if the person becomes the initial aggressor or causes harm after the danger passes. We work to prove that our clients acted within the limits of reasonable force under California law. Our criminal defense attorneys carefully review each case to determine if the prosecution exaggerated the use of force or ignored key facts.

The Role of “Proportionate Response” in Self-Defense Cases

The level of force used in self-defense must always match the danger faced. A proportionate response shows that the person acted out of necessity, not out of revenge or dominance. We help clients explain their actions and demonstrate to the jury that their response was appropriate for the threat they encountered.

Deadly Force vs. Non-Deadly Force

Non-deadly force is meant to stop harm without causing serious injury or death. This includes pushing, restraining, or blocking an attacker. Deadly force, however, involves actions that can cause great bodily harm or death, such as using a firearm or knife.

Deadly force may be legally justified only when a person faces an immediate threat of death or severe injury. For example, defending against an armed perpetrator breaking into a residence may meet this standard. We guide clients through the legal consultation process to show that their actions were necessary, lawful, and consistent with criminal defense standards.

Defense Against Property vs. Defense of Life

The law draws a clear line between protecting property and protecting life. Using deadly force to defend property alone is rarely permitted unless the situation also poses a threat to human safety. California’s self-defense laws focus on preventing injury, not preserving material objects.

Under the concept of dominium, a property owner has the right to defend their possessions within reasonable limits. However, the use of deadly force is typically justified only in defense of life. Our attorneys review every detail—from property damage to the alleged perpetrator's intent—to show that our client acted lawfully.

Imminent Threat: Timing and Necessity

Timing is critical in determining whether self-defense is lawful. The danger must be immediate, and the person must act out of necessity to prevent harm. If the threat has already ended, the defense may no longer apply. We help clients show that their actions were a direct response to an imminent attack, not an act of retaliation.

Preventing vs. Retaliating Against Harm

Self-defense is about stopping harm before it occurs—not punishing someone afterward. Once an attacker retreats or no longer poses a threat, continuing to use force may be seen as retaliation. Courts consider whether the person’s actions were reasonable in preventing further harm.

Our criminal defense attorneys gather evidence, such as surveillance footage and witness statements, to show that the client acted in the heat of the moment. We focus on connecting each action to the need for safety and necessity. This distinction often determines whether the jury views the act as a lawful defense or an unlawful aggression.

The “Duty to Retreat” and “Stand Your Ground” Laws

Different states have varying rules about retreating before using force. Under duty to retreat laws, a person must try to escape safely before resorting to violence. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws allow individuals to defend themselves without retreating, especially in their home or vehicle.

California recognizes aspects of both but follows the castle doctrine, allowing residents to protect themselves inside their homes. We explain how these rules apply to each client’s case, especially in complex situations involving multiple people or unclear threats. Our attorneys review landmark cases and state-specific precedents to create a strong, fact-based defense.

Self-Defense in Domestic Violence and Assault Cases

Self-defense claims often arise in domestic violence and assault cases. Many people act out of fear during intense, emotional conflicts. Proving imminent danger, however, can be difficult when both sides suffer visible injuries.

We help clients demonstrate that their response was necessary, not aggressive. Our attorneys collect evidence, such as photos, messages, and medical reports, to prove that our client was the true victim. These details often make the difference between conviction and dismissal.

Self-Defense and Defense of Others

The law also allows people to defend others when they believe someone faces imminent danger. A person can use reasonable force to protect another individual from injury or great bodily harm. However, the same limits apply — the response must be necessary and not excessive.

We represent clients accused of using force while protecting family members, friends, or even strangers. Our attorneys explain to the jury that fear for another person’s safety can be just as real as fear for one’s own life. Each case requires careful review to prove that the actions were justified under California criminal law.

Common Misconceptions About Self-Defense

Many people misunderstand how self-defense works under criminal law. Some believe that any fear justifies force, but that’s not true. The law focuses on context, timing, and reasonableness — not just emotion.

Common self-defense myths include:

• You can always fight back if you feel scared.
• Any weapon use is automatically protected under self-defense laws.
• Self-defense applies even if the threat is no longer active.
• The police always see who started the fight.

We help clients understand these misconceptions and how they affect real cases. Our goal is to explain the law clearly and prepare strong defenses that stand up in court.

How Frances Prizzia Criminal Defense Lawyers Can Help

At The Law Offices of Frances Prizzia, our criminal defense attorneys in California have years of experience defending clients in violent crime and self-defense cases. We know how stressful it can be to face serious charges after defending yourself or others. Our team uses thorough investigation and strategic advocacy to protect your rights.

Here’s how we help our clients:

• Reviewing evidence, police reports, and witness accounts to expose errors.
• Challenging the prosecution’s version of events and cross-examining officers in court.
• Building strong legal defenses focused on necessity, reasonable force, and proportional response.
• Guiding clients through every stage of the case, from arrest to trial, with respect and care.

When you work with us, you gain more than an attorney — you gain a committed ally who fights to protect your freedom and your future.

Frequently Asked Questions

Contact Our California Self-Defense Lawyers for a Free Case Evaluation

If you are accused of using force or deadly force in self-defense, having the right representation can make a major difference. At The Law Offices of Frances Prizzia, we understand the challenges you face when protecting yourself or others leads to criminal charges. Our attorneys are experienced in California self-defense laws and know how to build a strong legal defense.

We investigate every detail, from witness statements to police reports, to prove that your actions were reasonable and necessary. When you contact our criminal defense lawyer, you get dedicated support and skilled advocacy. Reach out today for a free consultation and let us help protect your rights and your future.