What action is justified when someone reasonably believes immediate force is required for self-protection?

When someone reasonably believes that immediate force is required for self-protection, using necessary force is justified. This principle is based on the idea that individuals have the right to defend themselves from imminent harm. The term "necessary force" implies that the level of force used in defense must be proportionate to the threat faced.

In self-defense situations, the goal is to protect oneself from harm while avoiding excessive violence. Necessary force acknowledges that while defending oneself is important, the response should be limited to what is essential to prevent injury or escape from danger. This approach ensures that self-defense remains reasonable and legal, aligning with the overarching tenets of personal safety and justice.

The other actions, such as retaliation, calling for assistance, or using deadly force, may not align with the principles of justifiable self-defense. Retaliation is often seen as seeking revenge rather than immediate protection and could lead to escalation. Calling for assistance is a helpful action but does not directly address the immediate threat if the individual is in immediate danger. Using deadly force is only justified in very specific circumstances where there is an imminent threat to life, making its application far more limited and stricter than necessary force. Thus, the most justified and sensible choice in the context of immediate self-pro