In a self-defense situation, what can justify the use of potentially lethal empty-hand techniques?

The use of potentially lethal empty-hand techniques in a self-defense situation is justified primarily by the possibility of life-threatening harm. This rationale is founded on the principle that a person has the right to protect themselves from serious injury or death. In self-defense scenarios, the perceived threat to a person's life can warrant the use of excessive force, including lethal techniques, if there is a reasonable belief that the situation poses an imminent danger to their life or serious bodily injury.

In evaluating this, factors such as the nature of the attack, the attacker’s actions, and the environment all contribute to establishing whether the situation truly reflects a life-threatening scenario. The key element is that the defender must genuinely believe that they are in imminent danger of being harmed or killed.

Other choices present factors that may influence the perception and response to a threat but do not inherently justify the deployment of lethal techniques. The presence of multiple attackers could certainly escalate the scenario, but unless those attackers are clearly intent on inflicting severe harm, it doesn't automatically justify lethal response measures. A lack of training might lead to a more panicked response rather than one based on a threat assessment, and while an emotional state can affect decision-making, it does not provide a legal or ethical framework for justifying the extreme