عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
The legitimate defense has been entered the criminal laws of different countries of the world since long ago. However, in a supposed defense against police that in several cases duties and authorities are in conflict with rights and freedom of the individuals; no consensus exists in this regard and various theories have been put forward. Some scientists have accepted absolute obedience theory, others absolute resistance and many accepted intermediate theory. According to the Islamic Penal Code, if they are officers outside scope of their duties, not worthy of legal protection and with the other circumstances, other party will have right to defend. So criterion separate self-defense and rebellion from each other and it is exit or non-exit of officers from their duties. But Iranian legislator accepted the intermediate theory by limiting the defendable issues against police, in this way that doesn’t accept the resistance against ‘body freedom’ and ‘assault’. It appears this is not a logical position and requires a review. Such a limitation does not exist in French law, and other mechanisms anticipated limiting the defense. This study tried to view the rules of Iran and France, Judicial procedure and doctrine, to assess the conditions and of limitations of defense against police to help the authorities in this field and with critically analyzing these positions, contributing to the legislature to eliminate possible defects.