re: #700 Buck

Well we disagree. You read that the person must already have been beaten so badly that he feared for his life, I read that they only need to PREVENT such a bad beating (or bodily harm).

You ask: “How and why would someone “prevent imminent death to himself” without fearing, i.e. recognizing a danger, to his life?”

All I am saying is that a person need not have already been beaten badly in order to fear for their life.

There’s no disagreement to be had here, at least not on this particular issue. The timing of your beating is irrelevant. The relevant portion is whether, at the time you killed, you were reasonably in fear of death.

The rest is subjective, for a jury to decide. If you’ve already been struck by your assailant, however, you’ve got a much stronger case for self-defense than if you were protecting yourself from anticipated, but not yet delivered, punches.