FBI data in 2025 estimated that violent crime declined by 9.3% compared with 2024. This included an 18.1% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter and a 7.2% decrease in aggravated assault.
Separately, a 2025 study published in JAMA Network Open surveyed 3,000 U.S. adults with access to firearms about defensive gun use. Of those surveyed, 91.7% reported never using a firearm defensively in their lifetime. In addition, fewer than 1% reported any of the measured forms of defensive gun use within the previous year.
Self-defense laws allow people to protect themselves or others when facing an immediate threat. But in what situation and when can you legally use force?
When faced with an imminent threat, a person may be forced to use self-defense to protect oneself. But any use of force must generally be reasonable under the circumstances. And because self-defense laws and standards vary by state, whether the use of force is legally justified depends on the specific facts and applicable law.
The Three Questions Every Self-Defense Claim Has to Answer
There are three basic checks that the state looks at in a self-defense claim. The wording on paper can vary from place to place, but the ideas stay similar.
Did the threat happen at that time? Think before you take action. The threat has to be real and ongoing. Under the law, an earlier event isn’t treated as a current danger, and force can’t be used just because harm might occur in the future. Once the threat has passed, you can’t use force to punish the culprit. The same when the danger has not yet begun.
Was your belief reasonable? This question is not only about what you thought in that moment. Courts compare your situation to how a typical person would view the same facts. They also do this without looking at it in hindsight. If your fear was real but not supported by what an average person would think, some states treat that differently. It can fit under imperfect self-defense. That does not fully clear the act, but it may lower the charges in certain places.
Was the force proportional? You’re only allowed to use the amount of force actually necessary to stop the threat. Responding to a shove with a weapon, for instance, generally isn’t going to hold up as justified, even if the initial fear was real.
Defense of Others Follows the Same Rules
Protecting someone else generally works under an identical standard. It is lawful to step in if you think that someone else is about to face an unlawful danger. But your view of what is happening must be reasonable.
Your response also has to be proportionate. These checks match the ones used when you defend yourself face to face.
Duty to Retreat Versus Stand Your Ground
One of the most important distinctions among states concerns whether you have to try to retreat before employing force, especially deadly force, in a public place. Only a few states require a duty to retreat where such retreat would not put you in danger. The majority of the states have what is called a “stand your ground” law.
Arizona is a stand your ground state. In Arizona, the law says a person does not have to back up before using force, even deadly force, as long as they are in a place they may lawfully be and they are not doing anything unlawful.
Arizona also has Castle Doctrine rules. Those provisions cover a home, an occupied vehicle, or a business place. They make the no-duty-to-retreat idea apply there in a clearer way.
None of this eliminates the other requirements. The threat still has to be imminent, the belief still has to be reasonable, and the response still has to be proportional.
A stand-your-ground rule expands where you’re allowed to hold your position. It doesn’t expand what level of force is justified once you do.
Why a Self-Defense Claim Doesn’t End the Case
This is something that surprises many people. Successfully raising self-defense as a legal argument doesn’t automatically resolve anything. It shifts the case into a different kind of dispute, one where the prosecution has to disprove the claim, but that doesn’t mean prosecutors decline to pursue charges.
They frequently do anyway, sometimes because they see inconsistencies in the available evidence. Other times, because they believe a jury should be the one to decide. According to a Scottsdale criminal defense attorney, if there is not enough evidence for your case, it could be dismissed on insufficient evidence.
This is where it becomes an issue regarding how the facts will be interpreted according to the law. The video taken from the surveillance camera and the witnesses’ testimonies, as well as the notes taken by the police officers, cannot speak for themselves. There needs to be an interpretation made that, when done incorrectly, can end up ruining the individual’s case.
Why Legal Representation Matters From the Start
Because the outcome of a self-defense claim relies heavily on how the reasonableness and proportionality of a response get argued, and because being charged doesn’t mean the claim has failed, having experienced counsel involved as early as possible makes a real difference.
Using force to protect yourself or someone else can be entirely lawful. Still, the law doesn’t assume that is the case just because the fear was real. Understanding the actual legal standard, imminence, reasonableness, and proportionality before you ever need it is the difference between a defensible action and a legal fight you weren’t prepared for.
