In defense of others, how is the standard evaluated?

• A. It uses the same reasonableness standard as self-defense.
• B. It requires the defender to be related to the victim.
• C. It uses a more stringent standard than self-defense.
• D. The standard is determined by the jurisdiction's common law.

Answer: (C)

Defending others is judged by a heightened need for reasonableness because you’re acting on behalf of someone else. The law asks whether you reasonably believed that the third person faced imminent unlawful harm and whether your use of force was necessary and proportionate to prevent that harm. That extra layer of scrutiny—the defender’s belief and actions being measured against what a reasonable person would think in the same situation—means the standard is stricter than the one for self-defense. You’re not just protecting yourself; you’re acting for another, so the justification must be clearly reasonable and appropriate to the threat to that other person.

That’s why this option is chosen: it reflects the idea that the defense of others is evaluated under a more stringent standard than self-defense. The other choices don’t fit because they either imply no difference from self-defense (which would not emphasize the extra scrutiny for protecting another), require a familial relation (not a universal requirement), or rely on a jurisdictional label alone without addressing the level of scrutiny applied to the defender’s belief and conduct.