See how's there's no element for self-defense? That's because you're looking in the wrong statute. Somewhere in the PC you found that definition in, there is another area that discusses self-defense and the contexts in which it can be an affirmative defense.

You'd also need to find the penal code for the location in the OP vid to make sure all elements were there.

The broader point is that you not only don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but you're defending a person who instigated and demolition derby on a public freeway, exited their vehicle in traffic and then proceeded to try to assault the driver.

If you don't know how self-defense laws work, maybe go find a situation with context you're more familiar with to run your fucking head about. Until then, maybe keep the "OMG the murdering murderers were muderous!!" bull shit to yourself.

That would be wrong if you were running over somebody for punching your mirror in a random parking lot when you weren’t in the car. However, I’m suggesting that they run over the man that just aggressively stopped them on a freeway, trying to block their exit, and aggressively exited his vehicle and is coming towards them with violent intent. You’re intentionally downplaying the actions of the violent individual. I don’t know if it’s because you like to power trip and try to do the same thing in traffic, but if the reactions in this sub are any lesson to you, don’t try that unless you’re okay with it being your last action.

Ah another certified armchair lawyer. Where would Reddit be without you?