What is considered lawful justification for protecting a human or animal from death or injury due to an attack by another animal?

The reason self-defense is lawful justification for protecting a human or animal from death or injury due to an attack by another animal is grounded in the principle that individuals have the right to protect themselves or others from imminent harm. This concept extends to situations where an animal poses a direct threat. When faced with an attack, taking action to prevent injury or death is considered reasonable and justifiable under the law.

The notion of self-defense is predicated on the immediacy of the threat; if another animal is attacking, a response—whether through physical intervention or other means—is deemed necessary to mitigate the danger. This rationale is widely recognized within legal frameworks, as it emphasizes the importance of safety and the need to intervene in life-threatening situations.

The other options do not adequately encompass the legal basis for action. "Lawful justification" is quite broad and vague without specific reference to self-defense, while “animal instinct” merely describes a natural behavior that does not hold up in legal contexts concerning the need for protection. The response cannot be generalized to include all approaches, as not all forms of action taken during an attack would meet the legal criteria set for justifiable self-defense.