Ken's right.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071212205321AACz80O
http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html
http://www.knifedealsplus.com/California-Law.html
Look at the moment just after Danzig pushed the bouncer. Danzig is leaning forward aggressively. It would be reasonable to believe that Danzig is going to throw a punch himself. The bouncer's reasonable belief that he is about to be harmed is the key. If Danzig had pushed the bouncer the same way, but then immediately started apologizing or backing away, then the bouncer's belief of impending harm would no longer be reasonable, and the punch would not be self-defense.
Surprisingly to me, California does not have a "duty of retreat.' Several states require that even if you are pushed, you must at least attempt to run away, before you are allowed to claim self-defense.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/...eeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-florida’s/
http://volokh.com/2012/04/02/im-going-to-stab-you-******s-a-duty-to-retreat-case/
Even when states have a duty of retreat, that duty does not exist when you are attacked in your own home.
Remember also that there are two sets of laws - criminal and civil. The burden of proof required against you in a civil case is only a "preponderance," which means a 51% chance you did it. In a criminal trial, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, which is much higher than 51%. So there are a lot of cases where the defendant would escape jail, but still end up having to pay money in a civil verdict.
Even after you know all of the law, you will find that circumstances often dictate the outcome more so than the letter of the law. People die from fistfights all the time, not from the punch, but from hitting their head on the concrete as they fall. Even if you were perfectly justified in a criminal law sense, if you end up killing someone, I would guess that you would still end up having to pay a civil judgment at least, especially if you had money and assets.
http://www.ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm
(Article written by a lawyer and directed at martial artists)
...the wise martial artist will attempt to avoid any hint of liability or criminal conduct. The following general principles may be of value in this endeavor.
• Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.
• If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.
• Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require ‘taking the first hit’, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).
• Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.
• Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.
• Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.
• When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.
• Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky.
