Legal Justification for the Use of Force

LegalJustification for the Use of Force


Legaljustification for the use of force

Currently,any attempt to formulate modern criminal law usually involves anevaluation of all the behaviors that a society should try todiscourage. In addition, a realistic appraisal or evaluation mustrecognize all the important motives concerning self-interest within asociety. Deeks (2013) contends that rules of law must be based onaccepted morality because no rule based on a hypothesis of totalunselfishness can be established without causing a violation ofworking and law beliefs. Additionally, the appraisal should notoverlook the importance of the illegal law as a tool for the societydevelopment, in which personal selfishness is controlled by a goodjudgment of social responsibility. The discourse elucidatesprofoundly the situations when use of force is justified legally.

Justificationcan act as a defense in a court of law if the action in question canbe justified under this section. For example, self-defense- a personis totally justified in employing force, excluding deadly forceagainst another person when he or she believes that, use of force isextremely necessary for protecting him or herself from the otherperson who tried to use force against them (Deeks, 2013 FloridaStatutes, 2014). However, an individual is justified to use or eventhreat to use deadly force when she or he reasonably believes thatthreatening or using deadly force will prevent great bodily harm ordeath to her or himself or even to another person. The person mightalso be justified if his actions were aimed at preventing forciblefelony. In addition, the individual who threatens or uses the deadlyforce according to this clause do not have to retreat or surrenderand she or he has the right to stay firm if they are in the rightplace.

Anotherjustification is home protection, and threatening or using deadlyforce is justified if the actor believes that the other person wantedto cause great bodily harm or even kill him or her. The firstjustification under this clause is that, an individual is assumed tohave strongly believed that the other person was intending to causegreat bodily harm or even death. The assumption can be supported ifthe other person whom the self-protection was used or threatenedagainst, was trying to enter the dwelling forcefully and unlawfully.However, the above sub-section is not effective if, the individualagainst whom the protective force is threatened or used has the legalrights to stay in the resident, or if the individual threatening orusing protective force is engaging in criminal activities in thehouse (Deeks, 2013 Florida Statutes, 2014). Alternatively, theprotection rights do not apply if the person employing defensivemeasures is preventing police officers from performing their duties.The clause also clearly indicates that the person being attacked inher or his dwelling, vehicle, or residence is not supposed towithdraw, and he or she is expected to stand firm on his or hergrounds. Also, the clause states that an individual who tries toattempt or enters another person’s house is assumed to be actingwith the intention of commit a crime.

Thelaw also allows a person to use or threaten to employ force inprotection of property. In this situation an individual is justifiedin threatening or using force, apart from deadly force, towards anintruder if he or she reasonably believes that it is necessary toterminate or prevent illegal trespass, or even other criminalinterference in her or his property or even a property owned by animmediate family member(Warren, Bode, &amp Palgrave Connect, 2014).In addition, a person who threatens or uses force according to thissub-section is not supposed to retreat after threatening or usingforce. On the other hand, an individual is justified to use orthreaten to employ deadly force if she or he believes that by doingso a forcible felony crime will be prevented.

Alaw enforcement officer is also justified to employ or threaten touse force when arresting a criminal. Officers are justified to useforce when they believe that, it is necessary to defend themselvesand others from bodily harms when conducting an arrest, whenre-arresting criminals who had escaped, and when arresting criminalswho are fleeing from facing the law(Peevers, 2013).Additionally, officers are allowed to use or threaten to employdeadly force when they believe that the criminal who is fleeing posesa threat of causing serious body harms to them and others, and whenthey strongly believe that the felon who is fleeing was involved in aserious criminal offence or if he or she had threatened to causeserious bodily harms to other people.

Otherareas where the law allows use of force is when a parent or guardianis using or threatening to employ force, although not deadly, on achild under the age of 18 with the intentions of disciplining him orher. However, the parent must act in accordance to the loco parents(Peevers, 2013).In addition, an educator is allowed by law to employ force, althoughnot deadly, on his or her students to a certain degree with the aimof maintaining as well as upholding discipline. Lastly, a guardiancan employ force though not deadly, to his or her incompetent childif he or she is aimed at upholding discipline as well as to promotingthe child’s welfare.

Conclusively,the law allows people to protect themselves from other people whowant to cause harm to them. If a person commits a crime as she or shetries to defend against the intruder the law does not incriminatethem because they are innocent according to the above sub-sections.Lastly, parents, educators, and guardians have been given the rightto discipline their children to a certain extent by the law.


Deeks,A. (2013). Consent to the use of force and International LawSupremacy.&nbspHarvardInternational Law Journal,&nbsp54(1).

FloridaStatutes (2014). Justifiable Use of Force: Chapter 776.

Peevers,C. (2013).&nbspThepolitics of justifying force: The Suez crisis, the Iraq War, andinternational law.

Warren,A., Bode, I., &amp Palgrave Connect (Online service).(2014).&nbspGoverningthe use-of-force in international relations: The post 9/11 USchallenge on international law.