IMO this one subverts the format, so it's all good.

It makes no sense, even by the logic that killing is only justified to preserve life. The part where you die is the part where they kill you afterwards. No one is going to wait until they declare their intent to kill you before fighting back. You take whatever opportunity you have because you might not get another one.

There are people in the world who believe no violence is justified ever, even in self defense, and they attack rape victims along with victims of other serious crimes, the military, etc. because they perceive people like that as threats to their insane ideology. They don't care about the hypocrisy of defending rapists and their ilk to do it. They care about holding back innocent people so that violence is never viewed in a positive light, and they do it at all costs.

True evil exists in this world and that is one of its many faces.

Also there is no way to tell if you will or will not be murdered right after, so you should very much consider your life to be in danger and act accordingly.

This is true and scary. I would like to see polling to find out how people truly feel about the issue by political faction.

Self defense is a legal defense. That means the person claiming that they were acting in self defense is going to be doing that, at trial, in front of a jury. That means they have been charged with murder and the jury has to decide whether the defendant was acting reasonably when they killed them. What that means specifically, depends on jurisdiction.

They could also be guilty of a lesser crime than first degree murder. There are knowing, reckless, and acting under extreme duress versions of homicide in most places. All of which still carry jail time.

Having argued self defense in front of a jury, I think it should always be an option for them so long as it makes some kind of sense for the facts.

FWIW, self defense is typical a valid claim only when you are in direct and immediate danger, and that danger has to be death or grievous bodily harm. Danger or a potential harm at some nebulous time in the future--or danger at a period in the past--is not generally considered a valid reason for using lethal force. That's why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)

Consult a lawyer for your state or province, because this shit varies from place to place.

Yeah, but I imagine they wouldn't be on board with #repealthe2nd