Ronald Reagan - "Welcome to the Republican Party"

Being in reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death (of yourself or another) is a necessary element in every state. 

But that alone isn't enough to claim self-defense. 

Even in Florida, even in Texas, you also need innocence, imminence, and proportionality, in addition to being in reasonable fear. 

Elements of self defense. (Deadly force and non-deadly force)

1) Innocence - is not in commission of a crime and is not the aggressor. (An armed robber can't claim self-defense against a clerk that draws a firearm)

2) Imminence - The attack must be happening or about to happen within seconds. (No pay back for past confrontations and no preemptive measures for attacks that may happen later)

3) Proportionality -  The law generally recognizes two categories of force deadly force and non-deadly force. (Deadly force to find as likely to cause serious injury or death.)

4) Reasonableness - One must be able to articulate how and why they were in reasonable fear. 

In every state you need at least all four to legally claim self-defense. (Or defense of another) 

Some States add a fifth element. A duty to retreat. This requires the defender to retreat if they may do so without increasing the risk of safety to themselves or others. 

Roughly 35 states are "stand your ground". 

A few states I believe Arkansas Maine Wisconsin and a couple others have a universal duty to retreat. 

The other states have a duty to retreat with some type of  exception such as at one's home, vehicle, or workplace. 

There's also 5) Desire. As in, I've had this gun for two years and I still haven't shot anyone. Itchy Trigger Finger Syndrome is a valid defense to homicide charges in most red states.

The fundamental problem with self-defense claims is that there usually aren't any witnesses, so the authorities have to rely on the killer's version of events, the only other person who was there being...dead. And of COURSE the killer will say he was attacked and was in fear for his life.

This presents the prosecution with a huge mountain to climb. Now they have to prove that the killer was NOT in danger for his life and had NOT been attacked by the person he killed. In the absence of video or direct eyewitness testimony, reasonable doubt will always exist. That, I suspect, is why the default setting has oozed from duty to retreat to stand your ground. 

This new doctrine could encourage someone who shoots another person during an altercation to finish him off rather than let him survive to testify. Which also makes me wonder if any state has a duty to stop an attacker without killing him rather than applying lethal force. After all, can't you just shoot your attacker in his arm or leg? Wouldn't that stop him?

Parenthetically, I know that the cops always shoot to kill, even when a suspect is fleeing. Given that they're supposed to be proficient with their weapons, I don't see why they couldn't disable rather than kill.

And apparently no one takes non-lethal weaponry, such as Tasers, seriously as a self-defense option.

I'm not sure if you were joking or not but there is no such defense as itchy trigger finger. (I think you were joking but still feel compelled to correct the record) 

I disagree with you that most self-defense cases are from scenarios with no witnesses. That would take some research to you confirm. 

Police officers and concealed carry holders do not "shoot to kill" , they are trained to shoot to stop the threat. Officers are trained to render aid after the threat stops. 

There are a few reasons why shooting someone in the leg or arm is not a good idea.

One big thing is safety. It is a smaller target. Higher chances of missing especially under stress. This means that there is much higher likelihood of an innocent bystander being hurt. 

Tasers (The ones that shoot the probes and actually temporarily incapacitate) are okay but not great. 

They have a very limited use case. When they work they work great but they often don't work. Especially with heavy clothing or multiple layers of clothing. 

Stun guns (The one where you have to push the device against the person) are complete garbage. They will do nothing to stop at determined attacker. They are merely an intimidation tool. 

Pepper spray is an excellent defense tool. I would highly recommend pepper spray. Assuming you get a high quality one. 

I carry pepper spray everyday. 

Isn't pepper spray very short-range? I mean, your attacker would have to be almost on top of you for you to hit him in the face with it. And that means that you'd have maybe half a second to fire it off.

I used to hike a lot in the northern Rockies, and I was told to carry bear spray. I asked a ranger once just how effective it would be as a defense. He shrugged and said, "It's better than nothing." I guess so. But I've had a total of nine grizzly encounters in my lifetime, and in none of them did I feel like I was in any real danger, nor was I under the delusion that a canister of bear spray would have saved me if the bear was determined to get rid of me. And of course, if you're hiking with a companion, all you have to do is run faster than him, or trip him if necessary.

I asked someone in jest if they would recommend jalapeno or habanero pepper spray. They told me that concentrated capsascin is in fact a very effective deterrent and the military had researched it as an antipersonnel tool. I think the problem turned out to be the delivery mechanism--it doesn't do well as an aerosol.

I still don't know of a reliable way to stop someone in their tracks without doing serious injury AND that method being deployable at medium to long range. Maybe in the near future, we'll be able to send a message to their chip implants that would temporaily paralyze them.

If a bear. Brown bear or black bear, is in mid determined attack pepper spray likely won't be effective. 

However it can be very effective during pre-attack. When the bear is stalking you and checking you out. Or when bluff charging.  A blast of pepper spray can be quite effective.

They are better used to deter or prevent an attack rather than stop an attack. 

Those big bear spray units put out a cone of fog that can reach up to 30 ft. Bears have very sensitive noses and eyes. 

Yes pepper spray does have a limited range. Generally between 3  and 12 ft depending on the unit.

It's for the guy walking towards you berating you and threating you and you become reasonably convinced he's about to hit you. 

One of its best use cases is to prevent a fight. 

Basically if you would be justified pushing or punching someone you are justified using pepper spray. 

One of the reasons it is a great tool is it is highly unlikely to cause injury. Even less likely than punching someone. It is very likely to change someone's behavior almost immediately. 

I think the studies you mentioned about the army were about tear gas not pepper spray. There are portable tear gas dispensers they are not as effective as pepper spray. 

I think military police on many bases do carry pepper spray. 

Part of the reason it was never developed as a weapon for the military is it technically violates treaties against chemical weapons.

What statements, Piggy?

 These statements -  

Misstatements. Guns are USED to kill people. Pencils are USED to misspell words. And so forth.

No one has ever actually said "Guns kill people." That would be a nonsensical statement, because killing a person is a willful act by another sentient person, and guns are not sentient.

The "message" on that stupid T-shirt is that people, not guns, kill other people...I mean, DUH. But guns make it EASIER for people to kill other people.

  Sure you did say "Guns kill people" when you posted this -  Guns = death. No way to sugarcoat it.