Under what conditions, if any, can violent action be said to be "legitimate"? ...?

Answer 1

Under what conditions, if any, can violent action be said to be "legitimate"?

There is no quick answer to your question.

I take "violent action" to mean some near-physical or physical force used against another living being for whatever reason. And the answer to this question would actually be fairly different over several cultures, so I'm going to stick to a Western/Anglo-based answer.

Generally, you may defend yourself or others from imminent physical harm by using a reasonable amount of physical force in response. That means if someone is attempting to do harm to you (or others you might feel compelled to "rescue"), then you can reasonably respond with violence to defend yourself or those others.

Keep in mind, though, if someone does harm to you and then starts walking away, you are not entitled to use force against them. That's retaliation-- not self-defense. Also, "self-help" involving you seeking out and doing violence to someone because you think they plan to do violence to you is not self-defense and is not a legitimate use of force. The law generally expects you to call the police in those circumstances.

Additionally, violence of the type encountered in some sporting events is "legitimate" if it's within the bounds of normal conduct for the game. Boxers may "box" each other, but they may not legitimately try to kill each other. Hockey players may be physical, but they may not do violence intended to harm other players. There have actually been people prosecuted in recent years in the U.S. for violent acts in sporting events that were not part of the sanctioned activity of the sport.

Some forms of physical force may be considered "legitimate" when used on children by a parent or someone standing in loco parentis. Although the best rule of thumb these days is to avoid striking children (for a number of varied reasons), the law often recognizes the need to discipline children (who may not understand reason) by using reasonable physical force that does no more than momentary harm.

Violence that is done with the consent of the person receiving the violence may also be considered "legitimate." Stunt performers like Johhny Knoxville in the movie Asshole have consented to have violence done to them in return for compensation, notoriety and celebrity. The same would apply to consensual sex acts involving violence or play violence.

Lastly, an accidental use of force might be considered legitimate. Take Vice President Dick Cheney-- who shot his friend while they were hunting together. While that was violence, it was considered to be an accident that carried no liability.

There are more specific instances when violence might be considered "legitimate" (on a military and political level) but I suspect that these answers are the ones most applicable to what you wanted to know.

[This is not legal advice. You should consult a licensed attorney-at-law for legal advice or representation before making decisions that may affect your legal rights.]

Answer 2

Under Australian Law, violence is never legitimate per se, however there are situations in which there are defences to use violence.

Basically, the only way is through the concept of self-defence which in Tasmania (where I am), it is only a defence if you're in immediate danger, and the violence is proportionate to the violence used against you. So basically, if somebody is running towards you with a baton, you would be able to defend yourself against them, by using an equivalent item with proportionate force. However, if they had a stick, and you had a gun, it wouldn't be self-defence if you shot them as the violence was not proportionate. Similarly if the agressor was a 12 year old and you are a body builder, generally speaking, a punch from you would not be proportionate as you would most likely be a lot stronger. However if a 12 year old had a gun, it would be an entirely different situation.

You also need to take into account, if you are violent towards someone, even if they instigated it, if the prosecution can prove that you intended to cause injury (an example would be you asking questions on the internet regarding the use of violence), you may be guilty of a crime.

I obviously do not know the situation you are in, however, my advice to you, if you are indeed considering using violence to respond to an aggressor, would be to follow the legal channels and not engage in any form of violence unless absolutely neccessary.

Answer 3

When used in retaliation of being attacked or as preventative measures from being harmed.

Example: Burglar confronts person on street. Said person pulls a conceal/carry weapon and shoots said burglar. Did said burglar intend to actually harm said person? If I was that person, I sure as hell wouldn't wait to find out before being attacked.

Other cases would be similar, such as being attacked by another and fighting back with any means neccessary. In such situations, violence could be legitimate if used under the guise of "self defense."

Otherwise, violence is no way to solve a problem. Its childish. Unfortunately, its hard to reason with some people...

Answer 4

without the muse on your question, violent action may be interpreted as something. each time a police officer has to shoot and kill a suspect it particularly is valid homicide. every time I could go arms on with a suspect it particularly is valid attack. extra info of your question may be mandatory here.

Answer 5

Usually, "self defense" where there is imminent
danger to the person pursuing the actual violence.

Sometimes you hear "in defense of others",
that is, if the bad guy goes after your kid, etc.

Answer 6

In the purpose of defense of self, family or property.

Answer 7

It's never actually "legal". However, it is a defence if you are protecting yourself or another human if yours/their life is in danger.

Other than that, I guess in the sport of boxing or sumfin!

Answer 8

War, personal defense if it is equal to the violence being brought onto you or your family, property.

Answer 9

When you are defending yourself from some whose sole purpose is to cause you bodily harm or your death

Answer 10

To defend yourself against someone trying to kill you.....