Is returning a punch valid self defense in the context of law?

Question

He punched u and paused. u were able to withstand the blow. u punched him back so hard that he fell and suffered injuries. were u wrong in the context of law?

Answer 1

Answered in Singapore's legal context:

From Singapore's Penal Code, Cap 224:

The right of private defence (self-defence) of the body starts as soon as you have a "reasonable apprehension of danger" to you, which "arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues".

The right of private defence "in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence".

The wording of the law suggests that the right of private defence is to prevent the commission of any offence to your body i.e. punching you. If your assailant continually rained punches on you, you would be justified in returning a blow that resulted in him falling and sustaining injuries.

However, one can argue that once your assailant threw the punch and stopped, your right of private defence ended as there is no longer any apprehension of danger to your body. It would appear from a reasonable observer that you continued the altercation by hitting him back. Technically speaking, both of you would have committed the offence of 'affray' i.e. fighting in a public place and disturbing the peace.

Answer 2

In Singapore, self-defense is a mitigating factor, not a valid reason in court at all.

Most of the time, the AG will have already taken it into account before finalising the charge.

So in the example given, you can still be charged for assualt, but the punishment will be lighter given the mitigating circumstances of self-defense, if the judge felt that had you not return the punch, you would have been further injured.

On the other hand, if there is reason to believe that there was no more threat from the other person (i.e. no more punches to come), than by returning the punch, you can be seen as seeking revenge or a case of rage. These are still mitigating factors, but not as strong as self-defence

Answer 3

Anyone above who answered "self defense" is being incomplete, at least as that rule is applied in the majority of jurisdictions.

Self-defense is a justification defense, where you are allowed to use reasonable force to PREVENT an attack. The counter must be timely, and in such a way that it stops or reduces an incoming imminent attack.

Attacking back afterwards is not self-defense, unless there was the obvious likelihood of continued violence, in which case the defender would have to prove that the counter-punch was done to stop further violence, and not merely in retribution or punishment. In other words, striking back out of anger or vengeance is not self-defense. Only preventing further attacks counts as self-defense.

The "agreement to fight" argument is very limited, and outside a formal sporting context would be a very tough sell to any court.

Answer 4

If you are able to show that a reasonable person could think that he would punch you again, then you would not be wrong to defend yourself with such force.

Such matters that must also be considered which were not noted:
What was the reason why the first punch was thrown?
What are the sizes and ages of the two involved?
Were there other people involved?
Was alcohol or other products involved?

Either way, unless the guy really got injured badly, the most you'll see is a civil suit.

Answer 5

Yes this fits as self defense in the context of the law. Do you have a witness that can say he punched you first? I read someone said exsessive force and don't worry about that. That would apply if you kept punching him or used a stick or other weapon in retaliation. You were well within your right to defend yourself in this situation. I'd find some witnesses or documentation to prove your case just well...just in case.

Answer 6

Even if you were justified in punching him, in most cases its going to be his word against yours. Did you have witnesses?

Always have witnesses to a fight, and then set up the crowd to know who is right and wrong. Make sure people know you warned him not to fight and made no threatening movements.

If he swings after that you have to defend yourself to the extent a reasonable person would. You cant go over and beyond the force he used to attack you. I am talking about a simple bar altercation not a home invasion or rape or something.

If you could of avoided injuring him then they will look at that.

Answer 7

You wouldn't have to use self defense as grounds. If he punched you first, he was "agreeing, or inviting you to fight." Just because he loses, doesn't invalidate the agreement. He took on an asumption of risk in hitting you first. Just don't go beyond what would be considered a reasonable agreement.

Answer 8

You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If he puches you, you are reasonable to punch back. "Reasonable" usually means you are allowed to use just enough force to repel your attacker. For example, if he had a ball bat, you wouldn't be allowed to machine gun him down, but by you simply doing what he did, only a little harder, you should be able to use self-defense as a valid defense to what happened, as long as he threw the first punch.

Answer 9

If you are in the US it depends upon what state you are in.
As long as it is self defense you should be okay.

However if you use excessive force, not called for in self defense and you seriously injure him you may be held accountable.

Answer 10

There is the concept of hot blood. You say he paused and you hit him back. If it all happened within about fifteen seconds, it was self-defense.