Runyan v. State

"Runyan v. State" (57 Ind. 80) is a United States court of appeals case which is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In "Runyan", the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

In the United States, the principle right of self-defense supported by Runyan is generally understood accepted not only by legal professionals but also by the general public. However, one exception to this general acceptance of the self-defense principle is when in the context of actions taken against the instrumentality of the government. Advocates for freedom against tyranny (i.e. governmental oppression) claim that the self-defense principle applies equally to protect an individual who defends himself against an illegal government or police action, and in support of this claim these advocates often cite the US Supreme Court Case John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529, where a man was acquitted of killing a police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest the man.

Runyan is supported by additional cases such as Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1., Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I, Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75, Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.