Which of the following is not a valid element of self-defence?

• A. Use of excessive force.
• B. Use of reasonable force appropriate to threat.
• C. Force necessary to prevent imminent unlawful violence.
• D. No duty to retreat.

Answer: (B)

Self-defence hinges on using force that is necessary and proportionate to prevent an immediate threat of unlawful violence. The key idea is that the force used must be justified by necessity to stop the threat, and it must be appropriate to what’s faced.

The statement that says self-defence includes using reasonable force appropriate to the threat is not treated as a separate element you must establish. Reasonableness is the standard used to judge the action after the fact, not an independent ingredient you list as part of the defence’s elements. In this framing, the real elements are that the force used is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful violence, and that it isn’t excessive. The notion of “no duty to retreat” is a doctrinal point that varies by jurisdiction, and the idea of using force that’s excessive is itself not self-defence. But the reason this option stands out as the not-valid element in this question’s setup is that “reasonable force appropriate to the threat” functions as the evaluative standard, not a discrete element you must prove.