Funny how you excluded the rest of everything I said!<quoted text>
Exactly. A reasonable person would assume that, including juries. That's why shutting the door is not unlawful imprisonment as some want to think. You see, self-defense is a valid defense against an unlawful imprisonment charge.
A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation.In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger. Who would that apply to?!?
Bradshaw had EVERY right to REPEL the force being exerted by brown who was now at his property!!!
Another important concept to the limits on defense of self-defense is something I would hope you would never be involved. But it is worth mentioning here, just for the sake of clarity.
Let's go back to the definition of Unlawful Force. It has already been described as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. Notice the word 'argument' is not included!
"When there is mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel, both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least."
Ninety percent of all "fights" are started over something stupid. If the court feels your actions were unwarranted or avoidable, your defense of self-defense will fail. Especially, if those actions result in deadly force.
When you are in pursuit you give up your "I'm afraid" defense!