AB 1488, titled the Preemptive Self Defense Act of 2025, amends Civil Code §50 and Penal Code §§16, 692, and 693 to define and authorize preemptive defensive action, require proportionality and cessation of force, and create a civil-immunity shield for lawful resistors. The bill expressly defines “imminent threat of bodily harm” to include actions such as deliberate feints or fake strikes that reasonably indicate an attack is about to occur, and says a person need not wait until a physical attack begins before taking reasonable defensive action.
The measure also directs courts not to factor a defender’s background, training, or professional fighting skills into the legal assessment of whether the defensive action was reasonable, and it bars civil liability for persons who lawfully resist a public offense — except where the resistor was the primary aggressor or used force disproportionate to the perceived threat. Taken together, these changes recalibrate both criminal and civil analyses of self-defense and create practical questions for prosecutors, civil litigants, courts, insurers, employers, and training organizations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Penal Code §692 to define “imminent threat of bodily harm” (explicitly listing feints and fake strikes as examples) and amends §693 to permit reasonable preemptive defensive action, require proportionality and cessation of force, and bar consideration of the defender’s training when assessing reasonableness. Civil Code §50 is amended to provide immunity from civil suits for lawful resistors, with exceptions for primary aggressors and disproportionate force.
Who It Affects
Private citizens who confront perceived assaults, business owners and employees (including security staff), defense counsel and prosecutors, civil plaintiffs seeking damages after confrontations, insurers that underwrite liability policies, and courts that issue jury instructions and determine admissibility of evidence related to self-defense.
Why It Matters
AB 1488 shifts legal focus from what a particular defender could do (given training or skill) to what a reasonable person could perceive and proportionally do, while insulating many resistors from civil suits. That combination is likely to change defense strategies, evidentiary disputes about skill and credibility, and civil litigation outcomes after violent encounters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1488 rewrites how California treats self-defense in both criminal and civil contexts. At the Penal Code level it broadens the statutory language that permits ‘‘lawful resistance’’ by saying a person who reasonably perceives an imminent threat may resist and that the resistor does not have to wait for a physical blow to land before acting.
The bill supplies a statutory example of imminence — including deliberate feints, fake strikes, or other aggressive movements intended to provoke or create fear of an immediate attack — to make clear that preparatory aggressive conduct can justify preemptive defensive measures.
The bill also tightens the boundaries of permissible force. It requires that any resistance be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat and must stop once the threat is no longer present.
Those two requirements sit side-by-side with a new evidentiary limitation: a defender’s prior background, training, or professional fighting skills may not be taken into account when determining whether the defender’s actions were reasonable. The text does not supply parade-of-evidence rules, but it plainly instructs that skill level is not a proper metric for the reasonableness inquiry.On the civil side, AB 1488 amends Civil Code §50 to create a statutory immunity: a person who lawfully resists a public offense will face no civil liability and no cause of action will accrue against them, subject to two exceptions — the person who was the primary aggressor and anyone who used force that was not proportional to the reasonably perceived threat.
Finally, the bill makes a technical amendment to the Penal Code’s list of crimes and public offenses. The package therefore alters both the criminal defense calculus (what a defender may lawfully do) and the civil consequences (whether victims can pursue damages) following confrontations.Practically speaking, the amendments will push courtroom fights toward contested factual questions about what the defendant reasonably perceived, when the threat ended, and whether force used was proportional — while removing a common line of attack and support about the defender’s training.
Courts will have to decide how far the ban on considering training extends (e.g., whether to exclude all evidence of prior martial arts or allow it for motive/credibility), and litigants will need new litigation strategies: prosecutors and plaintiffs may emphasize provocation, aggression, and escalation, while defense counsel will focus on contemporaneous perceptions and proportionality.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Civil Code §50(b)(1) creates broad civil immunity: "no civil liability" and "no cause of action" will arise for a person who lawfully resists a public offense described in Penal Code Chapter 1 (commencing with §692).
Penal Code §692 adds a statutory definition of "imminent threat of bodily harm" and explicitly lists deliberate feints, fake strikes, or other aggressive movements intended to provoke fear of an immediate attack as examples.
Penal Code §693(b) requires that resistance be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat and that it cease when the threat is no longer present, making both proportionality and cessation statutory requirements.
Penal Code §693(c) states that a person need not wait for a physical attack to begin before taking reasonable defensive action, and it bars consideration of the party’s background, training, and professional fighting skills in the reasonableness determination.
The immunity in §50(b) is subject to two exceptions: it does not protect a person who was the primary aggressor, nor a person who used force disproportionate to the reasonably perceived threat.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Preemptive Self Defense Act of 2025
This provision gives the statute its formal name; it has no operative legal effect beyond labeling the package. The short title signals legislative intent to emphasize preemptive defensive action and frames how courts and practitioners may interpret the rest of the text.
Creates civil immunity for lawful resistance with narrow exceptions
The amendment to Civil Code §50 adds an affirmative bar to civil suits for persons who lawfully resist a public offense, stating that there shall be no civil liability and no cause of action. The provision includes two carve-outs: (1) the immunity does not apply if the resistor was the primary aggressor, and (2) immunity does not apply where the resistor used force that was not proportional to the reasonably perceived threat. Practically, plaintiffs who bring wrongful death or battery suits after confrontations will face an early defensive threshold: they must plead and later prove facts taking the case outside the immunity (for example, establishing primary aggression or disproportionality).
Defines 'imminent threat' and expressly authorizes resistance by the party about to be injured
The edit to §692 clarifies that lawful resistance can be undertaken by the party about to be injured and provides a statutory definition of "imminent threat of bodily harm." By listing deliberate feints, fake strikes, and similar aggressive movements as examples, the statute narrows the predictability problem courts face: actions meant to provoke or simulate attack can qualify as imminent. That language reduces reliance on case-by-case common-law gloss and gives juries a statutory anchor when evaluating whether a defender reasonably perceived an immediate attack.
Imposes proportionality and cessation requirements; permits preemptive action; excludes training from reasonableness
Section 693 is reworked in three ways. First, it makes proportionality an explicit statutory duty — force must match the reasonably perceived threat. Second, it requires that force cease when the threat ends, injecting a temporal limit on defensive conduct. Third, subsection (c) says the defender need not wait for a blow to land to act and instructs that the defender’s background, training, and professional fighting skills shall not be taken into account when deciding if the conduct was reasonable. Operationally, judges will need to craft jury instructions and evidentiary rulings about whether, and to what extent, evidence of training can be admitted for non-reasonableness purposes (such as intent or credibility) without letting it calibrate the objective standard of reasonableness.
Technical, nonsubstantive clarification of 'crimes and public offenses'
The bill makes a technical correction to §16 of the Penal Code listing felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. This change is administrative and does not alter substantive rights or duties; it simply aligns statutory language with the bill's structural edits elsewhere.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private individuals who act in immediate self-defense: They gain clearer statutory support for taking preemptive defensive measures against conduct that reasonably indicates an imminent attack, and they receive broad protection from civil suits unless an exception applies.
- Businesses and employees (including retail staff): Employees who face aggressive customers will have a statutory basis to justify preemptive defensive action and reduced exposure to civil suits when they lawfully resist a public offense.
- Criminal defense attorneys: The bill supplies bright-line statutory language (about imminence and preemptive action) that defense counsel can deploy to frame reasonableness and to argue for dismissal or acquittal in borderline cases.
Who Bears the Cost
- Victims seeking civil remedies: Families and individuals injured by someone who claims lawful resistance will face a statutory immunity defense, making civil recovery more difficult unless they can show primary aggression or disproportionality.
- Prosecutors and civil plaintiffs: The new statutory examples and the ban on considering training will shift evidentiary and factual battles toward proving provocation, primary aggression, or disproportionality — potentially increasing litigation complexity and factual disputes.
- Courts and judges: Trial judges must develop new jury instructions and evidentiary rulings about how to handle evidence of a defendant’s training or skill, and they will face novel liability-phase motions under the new immunity provision.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is the trade-off between protecting individuals who reasonably fear immediate harm and preventing the legalization of preemptive or escalatory violence: the bill lowers the bar for acting before a blow lands and shields many defenders from civil suits, but in doing so it limits consideration of a defender’s specialized skills and narrows victims’ civil remedies — forcing courts to balance genuinely reasonable defensive conduct against a higher risk of disproportionate or provocative responses.
AB 1488 resolves certain uncertainties but creates several implementation challenges. The prohibition on taking training and professional fighting skills into account lacks procedural detail: the statute does not say whether courts must exclude all evidence of prior training, whether such evidence can be admitted for limited purposes (credibility, intent, or motive), or how juries should be instructed if training evidence is admitted for a limited purpose.
That ambiguity will produce early appellate litigation about the scope of the evidentiary ban and how it interacts with rules of relevance and admissibility.
The civil-immunity clause shifts much of the post-confrontation dispute from damage adjudication to threshold legal disputes over primary aggression and disproportionality. Plaintiffs will need to plead and later prove that the resistor was the primary aggressor or used excessive force to avoid the immunity bar; defense lawyers will respond with early motions to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Those doctrinal fights raise policy trade-offs: the immunity protects people acting in fear, but it also narrows civil accountability for victims and could reduce incentives for de-escalation in certain settings.
Finally, the bill’s endorsement of preemptive defensive action and its examples of imminence (feints, fake strikes) risk encouraging rapid, perhaps unnecessary, use of force in ambiguous encounters. Legislators created a statutory safe harbor for contemporaneous perception, but perception and reality can diverge — and the law now squarely places the burden on courts and juries to parse that divergence under new evidentiary constraints.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.