european-union israel
How much violence is legally permitted to defend property?
<p>Supposing a new business opens, and as usual the local criminals demand &quot;protection money&quot; under threat of property damage. If the business owner decides to spend the night at his business to defend his property from intentional, targeted damage, what level of violence is <em>generally</em> permitted to achieve his goals? For instance, I assume that screaming profanities at the criminals is legally permitted, yet murder is not. Is pushing somebody who is breaking your windows legally permissible, <em>in general</em>? Is punching them? What options do citizens have <em>in general</em> to protect their property from extortion?</p>
<p>Note that &quot;call the police&quot; is not an option - the police have no interest nor manpower to deal with this very common situation. My jurisdiction is Israel, but I am interested in what is the norm in other places as well, particularly Europe. Answers from all jurisdictions welcome for comparative purposes.</p>

<p>The level of violence legally permitted to defend property varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are general principles that are followed by many countries. In general, the use of force to defend property must be reasonable, proportional, and necessary. This means that the level of violence used must be appropriate to the situation, not excessive, and the only reasonable option available.</p>
<p>For example, in the United States, the use of force to defend property is governed by state law and the common law principle of self-defense. Under most state laws, the use of force is only justifiable if it is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime or to prevent immediate harm to oneself or another. However, the level of force used must be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat. In the case of a person breaking windows at a business, it would likely not be considered reasonable to use deadly force, but it might be considered reasonable to use non-deadly force, such as pushing or hitting the person, if there is no other way to stop the damage.</p>
<p>In Europe, the use of force to defend property is generally governed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to respect for private and family life, home, and possessions. This includes the right to use reasonable force to defend property, but the use of force must be proportionate to the threat and necessary to achieve the goal of protecting the property. Some countries in Europe, such as the United Kingdom, have specific laws that govern the use of force for self-defense and defense of property. Under UK law, the use of force to defend property is only justifiable if it is reasonable, proportionate, and necessary in the circumstances.</p>
<p>In Israel, the use of force to defend property is governed by the Penal Code, which provides for the right to use reasonable force in self-defense and defense of property. However, the use of force must be proportional to the threat and necessary to achieve the goal of protecting the property. In cases of extortion, the use of force may be justifiable, but it must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. In Israel, the use of deadly force is generally not considered reasonable in these circumstances, unless the person is in immediate danger of death or serious injury.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the level of violence legally permitted to defend property is dependent on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the situation. However, in general, the use of force must be reasonable, proportional, and necessary, and the level of force used must be appropriate to the perceived threat. It is important to be aware of the specific laws and principles governing the use of force in one's jurisdiction, and to act within those laws when defending property.</p>
<p><strong>P.S.</strong> You may also find interesting the following case
Graham v. Connor (1989), in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle of &quot;objective reasonableness&quot; in the use of force. The court held that the use of force must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the perspective of the person using force. This case is important in establishing the principle that the use of force must be reasonable and proportional to the threat, even when defending property.</p>

<p>First, the legal answer <em>is</em> &quot;call the police&quot;. The retort &quot;the police don't care&quot; points to a political problem, and you can ask on Politics SE how to convince the government to reform the police.</p>
<p>As far as what the shop owner can legally do, you look in the local laws to see what is said about use of force in defense of property. In Washington state, you go to <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.16&amp;full=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9A.16.020</a>, which says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of
another is not unlawful in the following cases... (3) Whenever used by
a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her,
in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her
person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with
real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, <em>in case
the force is not more than is necessary</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>What is conspicuously missing is a provision that allows a shop owner to forcibly eject a rowdy patron. You can use force to prevent them from trashing the place, but you cannot use force them to shut up. That is where you have to call the police, and where the police have to care. The proprietor would have to just put up with the rowdy person, and sue the police later (and in that case, the chances of getting a judgment against the police are slim, given sovereign immunity).</p>
<p>The judgment of how much force is necessary to prevent property damage is very fact-intensive, so it is impossible to say in general terms whether shooting a thug is &quot;necessary&quot;.</p>
