When Is a Threat Too Far Away? Imminence, Distance, and Long-Range Self-Defense in North Carolina
In North Carolina self-defense law, one principle defines when force is justified: imminence. The threat must be happening right now—not sometime in the future. Courts analyze this factor closely, especially when deadly force is used. A recurring question arises: was the threat too far away—physically or in time—to justify deadly force? And what about situations where a defender has the skill and tools to stop a deadly threat at long range?
The Legal Framework in North Carolina
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-51.3:
- Non-deadly force may be used if it is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent unlawful force.
- Deadly force may be used if it is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
The Castle Doctrine (§14-51.2) also creates a presumption of reasonable fear when someone unlawfully and forcibly enters—or attempts to enter—your home, workplace, or vehicle.
These statutes emphasize timing and reasonableness, not geography. The question isn’t how far away the threat is—it’s whether a reasonable person in the same position would believe deadly force was immediately necessary.
Distance as a Factor in Imminence
North Carolina law does not define a fixed distance for lawful self-defense. Instead, courts examine proximity, urgency, and the nature of the threat—whether the danger was happening or about to happen.
Questions Courts Consider:
- Was the attacker advancing or retreating?
- Was a weapon visible or within reach?
- How much time did the defender have to decide?
- Was the aggressor inside or breaching a protected space (home, vehicle, or workplace)?
While distance alone doesn’t decide a case, it heavily influences whether a reasonable person would believe deadly force was immediately necessary.
Case Law Illustrations
1. State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152 (1982)
The Court rejected the defendant’s self-defense claim due to a lack of imminent danger. The defendant’s vague “nervousness” was insufficient to justify deadly force.
Read the opinion →
2. State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253 (1989)
A battered wife killed her husband while he slept. The Court found that deadly force was not justified because the threat was not imminent—it was anticipated, not active.
Read the opinion →
3. State v. McLymore, 2022-NCSC-12
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an immediate causal nexus between the defendant’s actions and the perceived threat. While not about distance, it reinforces temporal immediacy—a lawful defensive response must correspond to a present threat.
Read the opinion →
4. State v. Austin, 2021-NCCOA-494
This case involved self-defense immunity under North Carolina’s “castle” and “stand-your-ground” statutes. The Court of Appeals ruled that factual disputes about whether a threat was still in progress prevented an early immunity ruling. The focus was on the presence of an ongoing threat, not physical distance.
Read the UNC summary →
The “What If” of Long-Range Self-Defense
Imagine a scenario similar to the 2017 Las Vegas (Mandalay Bay) attack—an active shooter firing from hundreds of yards away into a crowd. If a trained and lawfully armed individual had the means to accurately return fire with a rifle, would such a long-range defensive shot be lawful under North Carolina law?
Legally, it could—under strict conditions:
- Imminent danger: The shooter is actively firing and capable of inflicting death or serious injury.
- Reasonable belief: A reasonable person in the same situation would believe deadly force was immediately necessary to stop ongoing lethal harm.
- Ability, opportunity, jeopardy: The aggressor has the ability (weapon and range), opportunity (line-of-sight), and places others in jeopardy (active gunfire).
- Proportionality: Returning fire is proportionate to the level of lethal threat.
In such a case, a long-range shot could meet the legal test for imminence—not because of distance, but because the threat is active, continuous, and deadly.
Prosecutors would still analyze key factors:
- Was the attacker still firing or had the threat ended?
- Did the defender’s shot stop an immediate, ongoing danger?
- Were others at risk from the defender’s return fire?
- Was the defender’s location lawful and defensible?
If the evidence shows the defender acted reasonably to stop an active lethal assault, the use of force could be justified—regardless of whether it occurred at 10 yards or 400 yards.
Key Takeaway
In North Carolina, imminence and distance are intertwined but not interchangeable. A threat that is too far away, retreating, or speculative rarely satisfies the requirement for deadly force. But if a distant aggressor is actively killing or attempting to kill, the threat may still be imminent, even at range.
Courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances—movement, timing, weapons, and opportunities to disengage—to decide whether a reasonable person would have believed immediate action was necessary.
In short: self-defense is judged by what a reasonable person would do in that moment, not by how far away the danger happens to be.
Legal Note
Disclaimer: This article is for general legal education and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized advice, consult a licensed North Carolina attorney.