Self-Defense Law in the U.S., England, and Germany

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Common claims about U.S. self-defense law’s “exceptionalism” and “inhumanity” fail under closer scrutiny. Observers in the media, academia, and elsewhere tend to conflate access to deadly force (via firearms) with the legal authorization of the same. England and Germany’s self-defense laws, for example, far from being more “humane” toward the alleged attackers, place comparatively less legal restrictions on the circumstances under which deadly defensive force can be used.

Beyond assertions about U.S. self-defense law’s “harshness” being factually off-base, they are distractions. They get in the way of our embarking on a more informed national debate about the proper role of, and justification for, self-preferential deadly force in a modern, democratic society.

Eugene Volokh
March 15, 2022
Comparing U.S., English, and German Self-Defense Law (reason.com)

Interesting. I was under the impression that self-defense was essentially illegal in England. What about the stories such as a U.S. woman in England defending herself from attack with a nail file and being convicted?

Perhaps the law and the reality of prosecution are two different things.

Does anyone know more about this topic? This is kind of important to me. My step daughter is currently living in England.

Share

8 thoughts on “Self-Defense Law in the U.S., England, and Germany”

  2. And, except now the Germans don’t think right-wing people should be allowed to defend themselves?
    All this chicanery is just want-to-be-intellectual bureaucrats injecting their omni-self-importance into a basic human right.
    “They get in the way of our embarking on a more informed national debate about the proper role of, and justification for, self-preferential deadly force in a modern, democratic society.”
    Sorry Eugene, no need for national debate. It was already had. Self-defense is considered such a precious human right nothing in law was allowed to go anywhere near it. I believe the words were “shall not be infringed.”
    That, and the fact that if someone acted improperly in an act claimed as self-defense? There is already an established process in place for that also.
    The grand jury is told the evidence, decides, then prosecution can proceed through to the jury of one’s peers. (Thank God for AI spell check.)
    “State’s Burden of Proof
    Though formally an affirmative defense, once a defendant introduces evidence supporting self-defense, prosecutors must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Wait, what????
    All prosecutions have the “Burden of proof” and must prove it beyond a “reasonable doubt”. If one is accused in a court of law, one must prove one’s accusation. Defense doesn’t have to say a thing.
    It’s law 101. “Proponent of jurisdiction has the burden of proof.”
    Prosecution would have to prove why the 6’3 250 lb. Dshane was in the parking garage late at night beating and ripping the clothes off his attacker for a good reason when he got savagely attacked and shot to death. By a 110 lb. female. Who was the only one who owned a car parked down there. At which the said savage attack happened right next to. Melinda doesn’t have to say a word.
    We do need a “national debate” though. About how were going to relieve ourselves of this constant communist “whining for power campaign” about anything and everything.

    • “perhaps the law and the reality of prosecution are two different things”

      Two different things elsewhere, not so much here in US. Today.

      Next year, who knows.

  4. There was the case of the British farmer who was convicted for using deadly force against an armed home invader.

    OTOH, the late George Harrison and his wife (she did most of the work) were not arrested for defending themselves against an armed home invader who actually stabbed him. I assume that was because of his celebrity status.

    These are anecdotes. Some statistics would be nice. An analysis of the law does not suffice. It is the application.

      • If I remember correctly, a crime in Britain isn’t counted if it isn’t solved .

        • I know that is true for murders without a conviction.

          Stats on prosecutions and prosecutions not pursued after injuries or deaths would be interesting.

Comments are closed.