Restraining Orders

Most state laws state that a person cannot get an order based on acts committed against them in self-defense. However, generally, self-defense only excuses a use of force that’s equal to or less than the force with which the person was being threatened or exposed to. When someone uses self defense as an excuse for violence, the judge should look at whether the actions were proportionate to the threat or disproportionate. Let’s say, for example, Person A slaps Person B. If Person B responds by strangling Person A or knocking them unconscious, hopefully the judge would see that as just violence and not self-defense. Self-defense doesn’t cover excessive, disproportionate actions.

A judge may ask were the actions necessary to protect the person who is claiming self defense. In some states, the judge is also required to ask if the person had the opportunity to retreat (move to safety away from the aggressor) rather than use violence. In other states, the person is not required to retreat, but they are still generally not allowed to use more force than is necessary to protect themselves.

However, when someone is applying for a protective order, and they were the initial physical aggressor, the way that a judge may possibly use that to deny a protective order is to say that it proves the petitioner is not afraid of the respondent. A judge may think that if the petitioner was afraid for their safety, they would not start (initiate) physical contact or physical abuse. I can’t say whether fear is an element that a judge in STATE will consider when deciding whether to issue an order or not. You can read more about protection orders in STATE on our website HYPERLINK. You may want to get a lawyer to represent you in court who can hopefully convince the judge that the actions taken against you weren’t self-defense. We link to lawyers on our Finding a Lawyer page. HYPERLINK