2007-06-25 16:19:37 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, not usually. You are only allowed to protect yourself with a force sufficient to accomplish the task based on the situation. Most consider this as "respond in kind". In other words, just because someone hits you with a fist doesn't automatically give you the right to shoot them. However, in certain situations, you may have reason to believe you are in danger and therefore would be justified in shooting. So, in the case of a touch, 99% of the time, if you hit back, you will be the one charged with assault, unless you can prove that the person that touched you intended greater harm after the first touch and that your only protection was to attack him first.
If their is some serious concern her about how you would act if a person touched you, consider a restraining order that would protect you from him, and potentially you from doing something that you will probably regret.
2007-06-25 16:28:27 · answer #1 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that would be considered self-defense--however, it is always good to have witnesses to the fact that this was, in fact, self-defense--or the person defending him/herself could be thought of as the guilty party.
2007-06-25 16:25:05 · answer #2 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question evoked the memory of my little brothers in the back seat..."mom, he's touching me!"
2007-06-25 16:23:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not in most cases. You have a right to defend yourself, not to take offensive action.
2007-06-25 16:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on who they are (a perfect stranger or a friend) and what kind of touch it was (on the shoulder or somewhere else).
2007-06-25 16:27:41 · answer #5 · answered by n_goel17 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah you have the right to after they attempt to hit you.
2007-06-25 16:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by MRFILLUP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋