10%

[algernon]

Every time the legal boundaries of self defense are discussed here, I read about defenders being restricted to 10% more "force" than the attacker. This crops up often enough to make me wonder where it comes from. I hope that it is a myth, but as I have heard of dumber laws (my state once passed a bill that would require 3 to be used in place of pi in civil construction projects), I have to ask. Has anyone heard of a jurisdiction with such a statute?

[RichardZ]

I havent heard or known a law to actually include such a numeric curtail, such as a "percentage".

It would seem that force is restricted wthin the confines of common sense.

I would suggest to find out the applicable laws of such in the area you reside-involved.

[Kuma]

There's no such percentage in my state. Proper use of force in self-defense basically boils down to the fact that you just do what you need to do to end the threat and no more.

[WireFrame]

I've never heard of a 10% more force allowed rule, but the attacker better hit me damn hard if I'm only allowed to hit him 10% harder.

[DWx]

How would you define what 10% is let alone be expected to judge it in the SD moment? I think you'd have a job proving that somebody used only 10% more than the attackers force (unless they went to extremes of course) and even so I think in most cases you'd be able to justify using more because you genuinely feared for your life or whatever.

I have heard of dumber laws (my state once passed a bill that would require 3 to be used in place of pi in civil construction projects).

Now thats just stupid. With something like construction you'd want to be as accurate as possible.

[glockmeister]

In The dept of corrections we have somethign called the force continuum. Basically in a nutshell. it requires us to use the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation. For example, if someone is simply putting up passive resistance while being escorted, you wouldn't resort to hitting him with a billy or having a K-( dog attack him. At the same time if someone is trying to stab you, you obviously don't resort only to verbal commands. Most of it is pretty much just common sense. Same applies to civilians.

[tallgeese]

Never heard of something like this. I'd say it's misinformation from somewhere.

[the beast]

Every time the legal boundaries of self defense are discussed here, I read about defenders being restricted to 10% more "force" than the attacker. This crops up often enough to make me wonder where it comes from. I hope that it is a myth, but as I have heard of dumber laws (my state once passed a bill that would require 3 to be used in place of pi in civil construction projects), I have to ask. Has anyone heard of a jurisdiction with such a statute?

I have heard of something similar to this but just like you I'm not sure how true it is. What I heard of was something like if someone attacks you empty handed you can use a knife, if they use a knife you can use a gun etc. I never really gave it much thought because I don't believe lawmakers would pass such legislation.

[bushido_man96]

I think that I've seen that you can use one step above the use of force ladder, but I'm not for certain right now. I'd have to look into it some, to for sure.

[RichardZ]

I guess we all came to the same consenus that to have a actual percentage may seem to be a bit inaccurate in terms of applicable return force.