SELF-DEFENSE & DEFENSE OF HOME
Self-Defense and Protection of Others
Deadly Force
Deadly force should be permitted to defend a person when there is a reasonable belief of imminent:
imminent death;
serious bodily injury;
kidnapping;
forcible violent felony;
equivalent grave danger.
Defense Against Mobs and Violent Crowds
Peaceful protest is protected.
No person has the right to:
trap innocent motorists;
forcibly prevent people from leaving;
attack occupied vehicles;
drag occupants from vehicles;
use violence or credible threats against uninvolved people.
No person or group has the right to unlawfully trap motorists or deliberately deny them a safe path of movement. A driver whose vehicle is intentionally surrounded or blocked, with no safe avenue to leave, may use the minimum force reasonably necessary to escape, including cautiously moving the vehicle, even if the blockade has not yet become a violent attack.
When practicable, the driver should stop, give a clear warning, allow a reasonable opportunity to move, and use any safe alternative route that avoids people. This does not authorize targeting protesters, accelerating into a crowd, reckless driving, or using more force than necessary.
A person who knowingly remains in or enters the vehicle's path after warning and a reasonable opportunity to move bears responsibility for resulting injury or death when the driver is making a reasonable, good-faith, nonreckless effort to leave. An unintended injury or death does not by itself convert that reasonable escape into an intentional use of deadly force, and the driver should not face criminal punishment or civil liability solely because the escape produces that result.
Civil Protection for Lawful Self-Defense
A person found to have lawfully acted in self-defense should generally receive protection from civil liability arising solely from that justified act.
Defense of the Home
The Home Receives the Highest Protection
A person's occupied home should receive the strongest protection under self-defense law.
A person who reasonably believes an unlawful intruder is forcibly entering an occupied home should not be required to wait until they are physically attacked before taking reasonable defensive action.
Castle Doctrine
A lawful occupant should have no general duty to retreat from their own home before defending themselves or another lawful occupant from an unlawful violent intruder.
Protected Property Beyond the Home
Castle Doctrine protections should extend beyond the physical walls of the home to private grounds enclosed by a visible, well-established fence line that gives reasonable notice that entry is restricted. Mere presence on open, unfenced, or ambiguously marked land does not by itself justify force. An owner or lawful occupant should have no general duty to retreat from those enclosed grounds before using force authorized by this policy.
Except when immediate action is reasonably necessary to protect a person or property, the owner or lawful occupant should clearly direct the trespasser to leave and allow a reasonable opportunity and safe path to depart. A person who has been clearly directed to leave must leave the property.
If the trespasser refuses to leave but does not use or threaten violence, the owner or lawful occupant may use reasonable nondeadly force to end the trespass, including physical removal or defensive spray such as pepper spray. Deadly force is not justified solely by nonviolent refusal to leave.
If the trespasser uses or threatens unlawful force, forcibly resists reasonable removal, damages or attempts to take property, or attempts to enter an occupied dwelling, the owner or lawful occupant may use the force reasonably necessary to defend themselves, others, and the property, including deadly force when reasonably necessary under this policy.
Place of Work
Castle Doctrine protections should extend to a person's lawful place of work. A business owner, employee, contractor, or other authorized occupant should have no general duty to abandon or retreat from the workplace before defending themselves, other lawful occupants, or property.
When practicable, a nonviolent trespasser must first be clearly directed to leave and given a reasonable opportunity and safe path to depart. Passive refusal may be met with reasonable nondeadly force, including physical removal or defensive spray.
If the trespasser uses or threatens unlawful force, forcibly resists reasonable removal, or commits or attempts burglary, robbery, theft, arson, vandalism, or property destruction, an authorized occupant may use reasonable force, including deadly force when reasonably necessary under this policy.
Vehicles
An occupied vehicle should receive Castle Doctrine protection. A driver or lawful occupant should have no general duty to abandon the vehicle or surrender its occupants or property.
A person who unlawfully attempts to forcibly enter, seize, carjack, disable, trap, or remove someone from an occupied vehicle may be met with reasonable force, including deadly force when reasonably necessary under this policy. Mere proximity, words, or peaceful contact with a vehicle do not justify force.
An unoccupied vehicle remains protected property under the defense-of-property standards in this policy.
Presumption During Forcible Home Entry
Where another person knowingly and unlawfully:
forcibly enters an occupied dwelling;
attempts forcible entry;
breaks into an occupied dwelling;
remains after committing a violent unlawful entry;
the lawful occupant may receive a rebuttable legal presumption that the occupant reasonably feared serious unlawful harm where the circumstances support that conclusion.
Defense of Property
Property May Be Defended
People should be allowed to use reasonable force, including deadly force when reasonably necessary, to prevent or stop:
burglary;
robbery;
theft;
arson;
vandalism;
unlawful destruction of property.
The right to defend property does not depend on whether the property is replaceable.
Deadly Force
Deadly force should be permitted when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent or stop an imminent or ongoing threat to human life or property, including:
death;
serious bodily injury;
kidnapping;
violent home invasion;
burglary;
robbery;
theft;
arson;
vandalism;
unlawful taking or destruction of property;
forcible felony;
equivalent unlawful threat to life or property.
The law should not categorically bar deadly force solely because the threatened harm concerns property rather than bodily injury.
Force, including deadly force, must be reasonable under the circumstances and used to stop an imminent or ongoing offense, not to punish or retaliate after the threat to life or property has ended.
Defense Against an Unidentified Home Intruder
Occupants Should Not Be Required to Guess That an Intruder Is Police
If government agents enter a residence in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to believe they are being subjected to a violent criminal home invasion, the occupant's defensive rights should be judged based on what the occupant reasonably knew at the time.
A resident should not automatically become a criminal merely because an intruder was later discovered to be a government officer.
Relevant facts should include:
whether officers clearly identified themselves;
whether identification was reasonably audible and visible;
whether uniforms were visible;
whether emergency circumstances existed;
whether the occupant had reasonable opportunity to recognize law enforcement;
whether the resident reasonably believed they faced imminent serious harm.
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT FORCE
No badge, uniform, office, or government position eliminates a person's right to defend themselves, another person, or property under the same standards stated elsewhere in this policy.
A person may use reasonable and proportionate force against a law-enforcement officer, corrections officer, government official, contractor, or government agent who is using or is about to use unlawful physical force. Deadly force may be used when reasonably necessary under this policy, including to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or an unlawful threat to property for which this policy otherwise permits deadly force. Defensive force must stop when the threat or offense ends and may not be used for punishment or retaliation.
No Automatic Immunity for the Aggressor
An official who unlawfully initiates physical force cannot automatically convert the victim's proportionate defensive reaction into assault, obstruction, or resisting arrest.
Knowing that the aggressor is an officer does not eliminate self-defense, and a badge, uniform, official report, or government employment does not create a conclusive presumption that the force was lawful.
A disputed command, citation, search, detention, seizure, or arrest does not by itself justify force against an official. The defense requires unlawful physical force, a reasonably perceived imminent physical threat, or another circumstance for which this policy authorizes defensive force.
Once competent evidence raises self-defense, the prosecution must disprove the defense under the criminal burden of proof.
When the defensive conduct is found justified, charges based solely on that conduct, including resisting or obstruction charges, must be dismissed.
Evidence and Independent Review
Body-camera recordings, bystander recordings, dispatch records, medical evidence, witness statements, use-of-force reports, prior commands, available paths of retreat or compliance, and evidence showing who initiated or escalated physical force must be preserved and considered.
A serious injury or death involving alleged official aggression should be investigated by an authority independent of the involved department.
An official who intentionally disables recording, destroys or conceals material evidence, falsifies a report, pressures a witness, or retaliates against a person for raising self-defense should face separate discipline and criminal referral when the conduct satisfies a criminal statute.
Core MPA standard: Lawful authority deserves protection. Unlawful official violence does not become lawful merely because the aggressor works for the government.
Self-Defense Procedure and Immunity
A person who presents competent evidence of lawful self-defense is entitled to an expedited pretrial immunity hearing. Once sufficient evidence is presented, the prosecution must prove under the criminal burden of proof that the use of force was not justified. The court must issue written findings.
Police and prosecutors must consider readily available exculpatory evidence before arrest or charging; a self-defense claim does not prevent investigation.
A person found to have acted lawfully receives immunity from criminal punishment and civil liability arising solely from the justified act.
A prevailing defendant may recover reasonable attorney fees from a civil claimant who pursued the case in bad faith after lawful self-defense was established.
The initial aggressor may not claim self-defense unless the aggressor clearly withdraws, communicates that withdrawal when reasonably possible, and the other person continues or renews the unlawful attack.
Force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable force may include deadly force to protect life or property, including to prevent or stop burglary, robbery, theft, arson, vandalism, unlawful taking or destruction of property, a forcible violent felony, or an equivalent unlawful threat. This authority ends when the threat or offense ends and may not be used for punishment or retaliation.
Reasonable force may be used to escape unlawful confinement, including an unlawful intentional road blockade that leaves no safe avenue of movement. A driver must use the minimum force reasonably necessary, may not intentionally target people or drive recklessly, and should warn and allow an opportunity to move when practicable. A person who knowingly remains in or enters the vehicle's path after that warning bears responsibility for resulting injury or death. An unintended injury or death does not by itself convert a reasonable, good-faith, nonreckless escape into an intentional use of deadly force, and the driver should not face criminal punishment or civil liability solely because the escape causes that result.
Related policies: Guns; Search Warrants, Raids & Home Entry; Law Enforcement; Courts, Trials, Appeals & Timely Justice.
Status: Proposed / Draft — not yet formally adopted.
Originally published: August 15, 2026.
Last updated: September 26, 2026.
Version: Draft 0.5.