The trial court held that my action is an incomplete self-defense because it was not commensurate to repel the aggression. Yet, the Court recognized that in self-defense or defense of a relative, the instinct for self-preservation will outweigh rational thinking. In these circumstances, Leo had the right to repel the unlawful aggression in order to protect himself and his father. Moreover, the law requires rational necessity, not indispensable need. The accused may be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether or not they employed rational means to repel the aggression.
