AB 2584, titled the Preemptive Self Defense Act of 2026, amends Civil Code §50 and Penal Code §§692–693 to clarify when a person may lawfully resist a public offense and to limit civil exposure for those who do so. The bill says a person who reasonably perceives an imminent threat of bodily harm may use resistance proportional to that perceived threat, need not wait until a physical attack begins, and must stop using force once the threat ends.
It also bars courts and juries from considering the defender’s background, training, or professional fighting skills when judging whether their defensive action was reasonable.
Practically, the bill creates a statutory definition of “imminent threat” that explicitly covers deliberate feints, grants limited civil immunity to people who lawfully resist a public offense (except primary aggressors or those who use disproportionate force), and imposes a proportionality-and-cessation rule on defensive conduct. These changes affect criminal charging, self-defense litigation, insurer exposure, workplace discipline for fights, and how police and prosecutors evaluate defensive claims.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Civil Code §50 to bar civil liability for persons who lawfully resist a public offense, subject to exceptions for primary aggressors and disproportionate force. It amends Penal Code §692 to let a person who reasonably perceives an imminent threat resist, and §693 to require proportionality, cessation when the threat ends, and that the defender need not wait for a physical attack to begin. The bill also defines “imminent threat” to include feints and prohibits using a defender’s training or professional fighting skills in assessing reasonableness.
Who It Affects
Individuals who use force claiming self-defense; civil plaintiffs suing for injuries arising from defensive acts; prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys who litigate imminence and reasonableness; insurers underwriting liability for assault and battery claims; employers and schools that discipline physical confrontations.
Why It Matters
AB 2584 codifies concepts that courts have treated as fact-specific, lowers the threshold for taking preemptive defensive action in some situations by naming feints as imminence indicators, narrows evidentiary factors judges and juries may consider, and limits civil remedies—shifting the balance between private civil accountability and a defendant’s ability to avoid liability for defensive force.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2584 adjusts both criminal and civil law around self-defense. On the criminal side, it clarifies who may lawfully resist a public offense and what counts as an imminent threat.
The bill expressly allows a person who reasonably perceives an imminent threat of bodily harm to take defensive action before a physical strike lands, and it lists acts such as deliberate feints or fake strikes as examples that can create a reasonable perception of imminent harm. That reduces the strict need to wait for contact before responding in some circumstances.
The bill requires that any resistance be proportional to the threat the defender reasonably perceived and that force stop once the threat is gone. Those two requirements function as built-in limits: a person cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary and cannot continue to use force after the risk has passed.
The statute ties proportionality and cessation to the defender’s reasonable perception rather than to a purely objective measure of harm, but still requires a link between perceived danger and the force used.On the civil side, AB 2584 amends Civil Code §50 to provide that a person who lawfully resists a public offense has no civil liability and that no cause of action accrues against them, with two express exceptions—if the person was the primary aggressor or if they used force that was not proportional to the reasonably perceived threat. That immunity compresses potential civil litigation in many defensive-force cases and redirects disputes about excess force into the same proportionality analysis that governs criminal assessment.A key procedural and evidentiary change is the prohibition on using the defender’s background, training, or professional fighting skills when determining whether their defensive action was reasonable.
That rule prevents prosecutors and civil plaintiffs from arguing that a trained fighter should have known better or could have employed less-lethal techniques; it also prevents juries from penalizing laypeople for lacking technique. Together these provisions change what evidence is relevant in both criminal trials and civil suits over defensive force.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Civil Code §50 is amended to create no civil liability for a person who lawfully resists a public offense, but explicitly preserves exceptions for the primary aggressor and for use of force that was not proportional to the reasonably perceived threat.
Penal Code §692 is amended to allow resistance by a person who reasonably perceives an imminent threat of bodily harm and defines “imminent threat” to include deliberate feints, fake strikes, or other aggressive movements intended to provoke fear of immediate attack.
Penal Code §693 requires that resistance be proportional to the reasonably perceived threat and mandates that force cease once the threat is no longer present.
The bill makes clear a defender need not wait until a physical attack begins before taking reasonable defensive action — codifying a preemptive response option in statute.
When courts or juries evaluate whether defensive action was reasonable, they must not consider the defender’s background, training, or professional fighting skills.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Act name: Preemptive Self Defense Act of 2026
This short section simply assigns the bill its title. It signals legislative intent to frame the statutory changes as a coordinated package on preemptive defensive conduct, which can matter for statutory construction and for how courts interpret the act’s various provisions together.
Limited civil immunity for lawful resistance
The amendment to §50 creates a broad bar on civil liability for someone who lawfully resists a public offense, collapsing many tort claims that flow from defensive encounters. The immunity is not absolute: it expressly exempts primary aggressors and persons who used force that was disproportionate to the reasonably perceived threat. Practically, plaintiffs will face an early hurdle arguing that a defendant’s conduct was outside the immunity—shifting litigation toward contested facts about who was the aggressor and whether force exceeded what the defender reasonably perceived as necessary.
Who may resist and what counts as ‘imminent’
Section 692 is amended to state that resistance may be made by anyone who reasonably perceives an imminent threat of bodily harm and to define ‘imminent threat’ to include deliberate feints, fake strikes, or other aggressive movements intended to provoke fear of immediate attack. This has two practical consequences: it gives statutory backing to preemptive defensive responses in certain scenarios, and it narrows the inquiry into imminence by naming specific conduct that qualifies. Investigators and prosecutors will need to collect evidence about the defender’s perception and about the aggressor’s movements to litigate imminence questions.
Proportionality, cessation, preemptive action, and evidentiary limits
Section 693 now ties authorized resistance to proportionality and requires that defensive force stop once the threat ends. It also expressly allows a person to act before a physical attack begins and bars the factfinder from considering the defender’s background, training, or professional fighting skills when assessing reasonableness. Implementation issues arise immediately: juries must evaluate proportionality without reference to training-based expectations, and courts will have to parse when a threat is ‘no longer present.’ The combination of preemptive authorization and evidentiary limits is the bill’s operational core.
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
- Individuals who act in genuine self-defense: The statutory clarifications and civil immunity reduce the risk of civil suits and clarify when preemptive action is permissible, giving defenders stronger legal cover when their perception of imminent harm was reasonable.
- Criminal defendants claiming self-defense: Codifying imminence and the acceptability of preemptive action provides a clearer statutory basis for defensive claims that previously rested on case law and fact-specific jury determinations.
- People without formal fighting training: By prohibiting consideration of a defender’s training or professional fighting skills, the bill prevents experienced or untrained individuals from being judged against a technical skill standard that could otherwise inflate liability for less-skilled actors.
- Insurers and risk managers who can apply clearer bright-line rules: While the immunity may increase some payouts, the narrower statutory tests for imminence and proportionality let insurers better model and price litigation risk.
Who Bears the Cost
- Civil plaintiffs and victims seeking damages: The broad immunity reduces avenues for civil recovery except where plaintiffs can prove primary aggression or excessive force, which may be fact-intensive and costly to litigate.
- Prosecutors and law enforcement: The new statutory language may complicate charging and investigative decisions because proving a defendant was the primary aggressor or used disproportionate force becomes central; police reports will need more detailed documentation of movements and perceptions.
- Employers, schools, and institutions: Organizational liability and internal discipline become harder when employees or students claim preemptive defensive action and civil suits are foreclosed; employers may face increased safety and reputational risk.
- Courts and juries: Removing training as a factor in reasonableness determinations forces factfinders to evaluate proportionality and imminence without a commonly used reference point, potentially increasing disputes over what a reasonable person perceived and did in the moment.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to balance protecting people who reasonably act to prevent imminent harm against the risk that codifying preemptive defensive rights and barring training-based assessments will permit excessive or mistaken violence to go unremedied; it strengthens individual defenses at the potential cost of narrowing civil accountability and complicating factfinding about what a reasonable person perceived in a fast-moving encounter.
AB 2584 pushes several sensitive judgments into the hands of factfinders while narrowing the admissible factors they may consider. Defining imminence to include feints and permitting preemptive action resolves one type of evidentiary ambiguity (was the attacker about to strike?) but creates another (how should a jury weigh ambiguous body language or a staged provocation?).
The prohibition on considering a defender’s training removes a common comparative yardstick; that prevents unfair penalization of untrained defenders but could also mask the role specialized training played in escalating or de-escalating an encounter.
The civil immunity provision reduces plaintiffs’ remedies and may shift more disputes into criminal court or encourage factual contests over who was the primary aggressor and whether force was proportional. Practical implementation raises questions: what evidence proves that a threat was “no longer present”?
How will courts instruct juries to apply proportionality when they cannot reference the defender’s skill level? Finally, the statute’s emphasis on the defender’s ‘‘reasonably perceived’’ threat invites litigation over subjective perception versus objective facts—an evidentiary tension likely to produce conflicting appellate guidance before courts settle on consistent standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.