Is it legal to use force against a person who is trying to stop you from rescuing another person?

Question

Alice has been severely injured or is otherwise in danger. Eve wants to help Alice, but Bob is somehow preventing her from getting to Alice. Assume that Bob is not threatening to harm Eve; he is only preventing her from helping Alice. Perhaps Eve needs to walk down a narrow hallway and Bob is blocking it and refusing to move; there is no alternative way to rescue Alice.

Is it legal for Eve to use physical force against Bob in order to rescue Alice? Does it matter whether or not Bob is responsible for Alice's injury or endangerment?

Answer 1

germany

Bob through his actions is harming Alice. Thus Eve may use the minimum necessary force to help Alice as Nothilfe, which is defined as using §32 StGB (Self protection/Notwehr) and §34 StGB (justifying state of emergency/Rechtfertigender Notstand). As a result, it is allowed to harm someone to the degree of self protection for the benefit of someone else that can't protect themselves - such as Alice. However, the amount of force allowed must be proportional to the harm done to Alice - so Eve may use the least needed amount of force to get Bob from stopping Eve from helping Alice.

As an example, Eve might shove Bob out of the way, hit him, or use the threat of serious harm (which is usually illegal!) to deter Bob from getting in the way, but unless Alice is actually at risk of dying from Bob keeping her from applying pressure on a lacerated artery this very moment, she can't shoot at Bob - that would overstep the Notwehr, but might not be punished if the overstepping is for the right reasons defined in §33 StGB.

Bob also is liable for not rendering aid, §323c StGB unterlassene Hilfeleistung/Behinderung von hilfeleistenden Personen (Failure to provide assistance/hindering persons providing assistance).

Answer 2

united-states

There are dozens of jurisdictions in the U.S. with different criminal laws, but most have adopted the “justification of necessity” from the Model Penal Code of 1967. This created a general defense (§ 3.02(1)(a)) that:

Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm or evil…is justifiable, provided that: (a) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.

This is not actual law, but some sections of it have had great influence, and most states have passed a provision close to this.

Answer 3

canada

The necessity defence may be available to Eve. In Canada there are three elements to this defence (R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1 at paras. 28-31):

1. there must be an urgent situation of “clear and imminent peril”;
2. there must be no reasonable legal alternative to disobeying the law;
3. there must be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided.

And if Eve believes on reasonable grounds that there is a threat of force against Alice, then the defence called "defence of another" comes into play as well. It is codified at s. 34 of the Criminal Code:

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

The Supreme Court noted:

what is relevant is reasonably apprehended “force” of any kind, including force that is the product of negligence. The accused’s response under the new law is also no longer limited to a defensive use of force. It can apply to other classes of offences, including acts that tread upon the rights of innocent third parties... (R. v. Khill, at para. 40).

Answer 4

new-south-wales

Self-defence

s418 of the Crimes Act (my emphasis):

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary—

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

Answer 5

In france, if you are in a position to help someone who is in danger, and you decided not to even though there is no immediate danger for yourself, you can be prosecuted. This is defined in article 223-6 du code pénal and is often referred as "non-assistance à personne en danger"; also called "duty to rescue" in English.

Original text and DeepL translation below:

Quiconque pouvant empêcher par son action immédiate, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, soit un crime, soit un délit contre l'intégrité corporelle de la personne s'abstient volontairement de le faire est puni de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende.

Sera puni des mêmes peines quiconque s'abstient volontairement de porter à une personne en péril l'assistance que, sans risque pour lui ou pour les tiers, il pouvait lui prêter soit par son action personnelle, soit en provoquant un secours.

Les peines sont portées à sept ans d'emprisonnement et 100 000 euros d'amende lorsque le crime ou le délit contre l'intégrité corporelle de la personne mentionnée au premier alinéa est commis sur un mineur de quinze ans ou lorsque la personne en péril mentionnée au deuxième alinéa est un mineur de quinze ans.

DeepL translation:

Any person who can prevent by his immediate action, without risk to himself or to third parties, either a crime or an offence against the physical integrity of the person, voluntarily refrains from doing so is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.

Will be punished with the same penalties whoever voluntarily refrains from giving to a person in danger the assistance that, without risk for him or for the thirds, he could give him either by his personal action, or by provoking a help.

The penalties are increased to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 euros when the crime or offence against the physical integrity of the person mentioned in the first paragraph is committed against a minor of fifteen years of age or when the person in danger mentioned in the second paragraph is a minor of fifteen years of age.

Although it does not directly answer the question as to whether or not it is legal to use force against a person who is trying to stop you from rescuing another person, it does say that you are expected to do what you can to attempt to provide assistance.

Answer 6

Alice has gone out on a frozen lake and fell through the thin ice. Eve, who is heavier than Alice, wants to run out and pull her out. To Bob it is clear that if he stops Eve, Alice will die, but if he doesn’t stop her, both will die.

(And there was a case in my family, where an eight year old boy drowned, and two adult men trying to save him died as well. So this is not theoretic).