Self-defense terms,
as counsel argues them.

The defense that force otherwise unlawful was permitted under the circumstances, rather than a denial that the force occurred. It changes what the case is about: the act is usually conceded, and the surrounding facts become the entire contest. Which party carries the burden, and to what standard, varies by state and often by procedural posture. The analysis addresses the threat as it presented and the force as it answered.

The requirement, in most formulations, that the belief in the need to use force be honestly held and objectively reasonable for a person in the same situation, knowing what that person knew. Reasonableness is judged on the information available at the moment, without hindsight and without facts learned afterward. The analysis assembles what was knowable then: the scene, the distance, the words exchanged, the movements, and what the record shows was perceived.

Harm about to occur, as distinct from harm feared for later or harm that has already ended. Immediacy is the hinge in most self-defense cases, and it is contested with time and distance: how far apart the parties were, what the other party was doing and holding, and how little time the decision occupied. Where video exists, this is where a timeline built from it does the most work.

The requirement that the force used correspond to the threat faced, felt most sharply at the line between deadly and non-deadly force. Proportionality is assessed at the moment of decision and again as the encounter changes, because a threat that ends changes what further force can be justified. For that reason the analysis addresses each application of force separately instead of treating the incident as one undivided act.

The person who began the unlawful confrontation, who in most states forfeits the justification defense unless it is regained, commonly by withdrawing and communicating that withdrawal, or where the other party escalates far beyond the original conflict. Because the label decides many matters outright, the record work is granular: who approached whom, what was said, and what video and scene evidence show about the first physical contact.

Force used to protect a third person, generally justified to the extent that person would have been justified in defending themselves. The recurring complication is a mistaken but reasonable perception of what was happening, which states resolve differently. The analysis is the same threat analysis applied to a different vantage point: what the intervening person could see, hear and know at the moment of the decision.

Displaying a weapon to deter, without discharging or striking. States treat display differently: some address it as a distinct offense, others analyze it as a threat of force inside the justification framework. In casework the useful questions are what the display was intended to accomplish and how it presented to the other party, documented from statements, video and scene evidence rather than from the label in the charging document.

Deadly force is force likely or intended to cause death or serious bodily harm; non-deadly force is everything below that line. The line matters because retreat rules, proportionality and often the burden attach to it. Where the person using force is an officer rather than a civilian, the framework changes. A civil claim that the officer’s force was an unreasonable seizure is analyzed under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) on the totality of the facts and circumstances, without hindsight. A criminal charge against an officer is measured against the state’s justification statute and pattern instructions, which often differ from the civil test.