In self-defense claims, what must an accused demonstrate?

In self-defense claims, the accused must demonstrate that the force used was necessary and proportionate in response to a perceived threat. This principle is grounded in the legal concept that self-defense is justified when an individual faces a genuine and imminent threat of harm, and the response must not exceed what is reasonably required to eliminate that threat. The requirement of proportionality ensures that the level of force applied in self-defense is commensurate with the danger faced, preventing excessive or retaliatory violence.

For example, if someone is confronted with physical aggression, they may be justified in responding with defensive measures, but they should not respond with lethal force unless their life is genuinely at risk. This reasoning is critical to ensuring that self-defense claims are consistent with the principles of justice and public safety, allowing individuals to protect themselves without crossing the line into unlawful aggression.

The other options highlight different elements that do not encapsulate the core requirement of self-defense. Demonstrating greater force than necessary would contradict the principles of self-defense, while establishing actus reus and mens rea pertains more broadly to the criminal liability framework rather than the specifics of justifying self-defense. Proving an immediate danger, while it may be a relevant factor in some contexts, is not the sole focus of the