@Kacper disallowance is never the solution ''let alone that it's not your decision to make''
thus some logical limits on self-defense should be implemented to insure the ultimate & legitimate san andreas public security code execution
acts of aggression : “aggressor” someone who illegally threatens to attack another or intentionally provokes a fight. assume john approaches jane , grabbing a baseball bat and waves it, and shouts threats to kill her. to protect herself, jane stabs john in the gut. as the aggressor, john isn’t entitled to forcefully defend himself against jane’s act of self-protection but the aggressor limitation to self-defense doesn’t mean necessarily that you can never use force if you did anything to contribute to a fight If one man insulted another , and the insulted party retrieves a revolver and points it as if to shoot the insulter, the insulter is likely legally justified in using deadly force to prevent the shot. - to earn the self-defense right, an aggressor who employs deadly force must generally “withdraw” from the conflict. and communicate the withdrawal to the other person. suppose john tries to stab jane in the neck with a knife. jane fights off john, so successfully that john runs away and hides. jane pursues. john has to communicate to jane that he’s done with the confrontation in order to have the right to self-defense. otherwise, jane might think that john is regrouping in order to attack again. If john doesn’t communicate his withdrawal to jane and he kills jane in what might otherwise be self-defense, he’s guilty of murder. (It might work for john to come out of hiding, drop the knife, and yell, “hey, I’m sorry and I give up! please don’t hurt me!”)
escalation : ” where one person uses nondeadly violence and the other responds unreasonably with deadly force. suppose dave tries to give vera a slap with his knuckles. vera grabs a nearby samurai sword and tries to kill dave with it. dave can be convicted of simple assault for the attempted backhand. but can he be convicted of murder if he defends himself against the sword attack with a gunshot to vera’s head? to claim self-defense, an initial aggressor like dave would have to first take any opportunity to safely retreat. dave would have been entitled to use deadly force only after retreating, provided that a clearly safe retreat was available. If he retreated or there wasn’t an opportunity for safe retreat, he would be allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. otherwise, dave would likely be guilty of either murder or manslaughter if he killed vera.
duty to retreat : innocent people who are aware that they can retreat in complete safety do so instead of responding with deadly force to threats of deadly force. ” falling back isn’t necessary when it would endanger the victim of the attack. (( innocent people who are under attack in their own homes don’t need to retreat, even if they can do so safely. Instead, they can typically use even enough force to kill if they are in apparent danger of serious injury)).
stand your ground : “no retreat” rule, which in its basic form allows: - a nonaggressor - who is aware of an opportunity to safely retreat but doesn’t take it - to use deadly force against an attacker whom the nonaggressor reasonably believes will kill or cause serious physical harm.