Judge didn’t think so.
Except its not.
You call it nonsense…apparently its also the law.
This is no different than ths idiot who pulls a gun in an effort to try to “convince” a would be attacker to cease and desist. As I understand it, one should not pull a weapon unless they plan to use it and are in imminent danger. It can be said that if you have the time to use the gun as a detterent and not a stopping mechanism, you arent in imminent danger. Same applies here …if you have successfully defended yourself to the point that your attackers are retreating, pursuing them then makes you the aggressor, as if you simply let the escape, you would quite obviously not be in danger anymore.
Not sure why this is so hard for you.
Then you really ought to know what it says.
I wonder… could it be successfully argued that not pursuing and taking aggressive action left more of a threat? Say for instance, there is some kind of “street” code that if you don’t pursue - the perpetrators will come back with more deadly force? That if you do follow and attack you earn some kind of respect and they don’t come back?
No, it couldnt be successfully argued on the basis of some dumb assed street code.
The law says that you cant legally kill someone who does not present an imminent threat to you. Once the assailants leave, you are no longer in imminent danger, and by following them, you put yourself BACK in danger. Thats on you, and was a concious decision which has consequences.
Like you, I’m not sure why this concept is so difficult.
If someone (or someones) assaults you, you have every right to proportional self defense.
After the assault is over and you are no longer in imminent danger, if you decide to attack then you too become guilty of assault.
I understand the law, but I also think there are extenuating circumstances to consider. Not everyone reacts the same way to a life or death threat. Humans have an instinctual fight or flight reaction to danger. Those who’s reaction is “fight” cannot necessarily stop in the midst of an adrenaline rush to consider the law or even the outcome of their actions. They are reacting on a base human instinct.
I just think the law should be flexible enough to take things like this into account.
“Proportional” 
That’s part of the legal definition of self defense. If someone slaps you, you can’t shoot them in the face and claim self defense.
Actually I can.
Good luck in court.
…
Don’t need luck.
Lol say what? The phrase you are referring to is you shouldn’t draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it, but that should also include, you shouldn’t even carry one if you aren’t, otherwise the attacker is going to end up armed with your weapon. It is most definitely, not by any stretch of the imagination you should not pull it unless you are going to fire it.
When the perp ceases to be a threat. In this case, they ceased to be a threat when they fled from the coffee shop.
He became the aggressor when he pursued and then attacked them.
When the threat ceases, the claim of self defense ceases and by leaving the scene they had ceased to be a threat.
When self defense becomes retribution you become the criminal.
