What is the extent of force a private actor can use in defense of others?

The extent of force a private actor can use in defense of others is based on the principle of reasonable force. This principle emphasizes that a person is permitted to use only the amount of force that is necessary to protect another individual from imminent harm. The key here is that the force must be proportional to the threat faced; if the threat is non-lethal, then the response should also be non-lethal.

The justification for this limitation is rooted in the legal standards of self-defense and defense of others, which are designed to prevent excessive or unreasonable responses that could lead to unnecessary harm or escalation of violence. The use of force must be immediate and necessary; if the threatened harm can be avoided without physical confrontation, then force should not be used.

In contrast, choices that suggest unlimited or unjustified use of deadly force or threats would misrepresent the legal standards governing self-defense and defense of others. Deadly force is typically only justified in situations involving a threat to life or severe bodily harm. The notion that force can only be used against an armed attacker also overlooks scenarios where an unarmed person may be facing imminent harm, thereby highlighting the importance of evaluating the situation as a whole rather than focusing solely on the presence of a weapon.