Some bodyguards such as those protecting high-ranking government officials or those operating in high-risk environments such as war zones may carry assault rifles.
In addition to these weapons, a bodyguard team may also have more specialist weapons to aid them in maintaining the safety of their principal, such as sniper rifles and anti-materiel rifles (for anti-sniper protection) or shotguns. Bodyguards that protect high-risk principals may wear body armor such as kevlar or ceramic vests. The bodyguards may also have other ballistic shields, such as Kevlar-reinforced briefcases or clipboards which, while appearing innocuous, can be used to protect the principal. The principal may also wear body armor in high-risk situations. For a close protection officer, the primary tactic against sniper attacks is defensive: avoid exposing the principal to the risk of being fired upon.
What is the defense of Felicia’s Lawyer in the eyes of the law? Self Defense of Another Person
An individual has the legal right to use reasonable force to defend another person who is the victim (or about to be the victim) of an assault. The rule is a person can use force to defend another person if that person would be justified in using force himself in self-defense. It is the right of a person to protect a third party with reasonable force against another person who is threatening to inflict force upon the third party. It is also known as the Alter Ego rule.
Alter Ego” Rule
It is the obsolete rule that a person coming to the aid of a third party has no more right to defend the third party than the third party would, himself, have had to defend himself. In most jurisdictions, the defendant may use reasonable force in defense of any third person. See Foster v. Commonwealth, 412 S.E.2d 198 (Va. 1991) it was held thus
Under the majority view, in order to justifiably defend another, the defendant must reasonably believe that the person being defended was free from fault; whether the defended person was, in fact, free from fault is legally irrelevant to the defense in those jurisdictions. This view is based on the principle that one should not be convicted of a crime for attempting to protect one whom he or she perceives to be a faultless victim from a violent assault. Under this approach, the policy of the law is to encourage individuals to come to the aid of perceived victims of assault. We find this position to be well-grounded in principle and policy. Accordingly, we hold that the law pertaining to the defense of others is that one may avail himself or herself of the defense only where he or she reasonably believes, based on the attendant circumstances, that the person defended is without fault in provoking the fray.
Today, most international jurisdictions, along with the Model Penal Code, allow a defendant to use force in defense of others as long as it reasonably appears that the person has the right to use self-defense himself.
