On April 10, 2026, a 27-year-old firearms instructor fatally shot a 26-year-old man, claiming he had acted in self-defense. Prosecutors, however, charged him with homicide rather than exceeding the limits of self-defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For some, this is proof that the case does not qualify as self-defense at all. For others, it symbolises a state that places more trust in the aggressor than in a citizen defending against violence. The question returns once again: where, in fact, do the limits of self-defense lie?<\/strong> And does a law meant to protect victims sometimes turn them into the accused?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the Polish Criminal Code\u2014Article 25\u2014self-defense is defined with apparent clarity: a person does not commit an offence if they repel a direct, unlawful attack on any legally protected interest. This includes not only life, but also health, freedom, bodily integrity, and property.<\/strong> The key condition is that the threat must be real and ongoing. Self-defense is a right, not an obligation. The state does not demand heroism<\/a>, but it allows individuals not to remain passive victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet this is only the beginning. The law also recognises the possibility of exceeding the limits of self-defense<\/strong>\u2014particularly when the method of defense is \u201cgrossly disproportionate\u201d to the danger posed. This is where doubt begins. Does defending one\u2019s life truly justify taking the life of an attacker?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And what if the threat involves serious bodily harm, assault, or rape? Must one risk one\u2019s own health and dignity in order to preserve the life of the aggressor? How should we judge a situation in which someone breaks into a home at night, and their intentions remain unknown? Are we allowed to assume the worst? Must we wait until the attacker raises a knife before acting?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law, at least in part, recognises the dramatic nature of such moments. It provides that a person who exceeds the limits of self-defense under the influence of fear or agitation justified by the circumstances may not be punished at all. This is a tacit acknowledgment that a person under attack is not required to weigh values with cold precision<\/strong>\u2014another\u2019s life against one\u2019s own safety or dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, however, it is the court and the prosecutor who decide whether the fear was \u201cjustified\u201d and whether the response was proportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Debates about the limits of self-defense have persisted for years. One side defends the principle of proportionality. According to this view, one cannot justifiably kill someone who did not intend to kill<\/strong>. If the attacker seeks only to beat, rob, or intimidate, the use of lethal force appears morally and legally indefensible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This reasoning creates a troubling expectation: if you are not certain that your attacker intends to kill you, you should not use means that could kill them. In practice, this often amounts to asking the weaker party to endure harm\u2014to accept violence, humiliation, or injury\u2014so as not to violate the highest good, which is human life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Opposing this view are those who argue that an aggressor, by initiating unlawful violence, removes themselves from the protection ordinarily granted by law and morality<\/strong>. In this perspective, the attacker steps outside the circle of mutual rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If someone attacks with a knife, is stronger, faster, and leaves me with only one realistic chance\u2014neutralising them with a firearm\u2014then the demand for \u201cproportionality\u201d begins to sound abstract, even cruel. Must I truly risk my own life because the attacker may have intended \u201conly\u201d to harm me?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps this is the paradox of evil<\/strong>. It relies on the assumption that good, constrained by its own scruples, will hesitate to act with full force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Supporters of a broader understanding of self-defense often turn to classical liberal thinkers, including John Locke<\/strong>. In a key passage of the Second Treatise of Government<\/em>, Locke argues that an attempt to dominate another person by force creates a \u201cstate of war\u201d between the attacker and the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him\u2026 and it is reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThe Legal Limits of Self-Defense<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Is Fear Enough?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Adequate or Effective?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Does the Aggressor Lose Protection?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
When an Attack Becomes a State of War<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n