One setting up this defence must have act ed on facts as they appeared to him. If, without fault, or carelessness, he is misled concerning them and defends himself cor reedy according to what he supposes the facts to be, though they are in truth other wise, and he has really no occasion for the extreme measures, the defence is made out; 1 Bish. Cr. L. § 384 ; State v. Harris, 46 N. C. 193; Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150. It need not appear that the killing was abso lutely necessary; State v. Collins, 32 Ia. 39.
Reasonable fear does not mean the fear of a coward, but the fear of a reasonably courageous man; Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 463, 17 S. E. 863; fear that one's life is in danger will not excuse a homicide in the ab sence of an overt act or hostile demonstra tion on the part of the deceased.
A question whether a homicide is com mitted in repelling an attack is a question of fact not necessarily dependent upon the duration or quality of the reflection by which the act may have been preceded ; Hickory v. U. S., 151 U. S. 303, 14 Sup. Ct. 334, 38 L. Ed, 170. One assailed on his own grounds, without provocation, by a person armed with a deadly weapon and apparent ly seeking his life, is not obliged to retreat and may defend himself with such means as are within his control; Beard v. U. S., 158 U. S. 550, 15 Sup. Ct. 962, 39 L. Ed. 1086; Eversole v. Com., 95 Ky. 623, 26 S. W. 816. So a person who has had an angry alterca tion with another person may be justified in arming himself for self-defence; and if, on meeting his adversary afterwards, he kills him, but not in necessary self-defence, his crime may be manslaughter or murder, according to the circumstances on the occa sion of the killing, and is not necessarily murder by reason of his having previously armed himself; Thompson v. U. S., 155 U. S. 271, 15 Sup. Ct. 73, 39 L. Ed. 146. Ac cordingly it is wrong to charge that the intentional arming of himself with a pistol by a defendant, even if with a view to self defence, would make a case of murder un less the actual affray developed a case of self-defence ; Allen v. U. S., 157 U. S. 675, 15 Sup. Ct. 720, 39 L. Ed. 854.
Where the accused embarks in the quarrel with no felonious intent or malice or purpose of doing bodily harm or killing, and, under reasonable belief of imminent danger, inflicts a deadly wound, it is not murder ; Wallace v. U. S., 162 U. S. 466, 16 Sup. Ct. 859, 40 L.
Ed. 1039; but where a difficulty is inten tionally brought on for the purpose of kill ing the deceased, the fact of imminent dan ger to the accused constitutes no defence; Wallace v. U. S., 162 U. S. 466, 16 Sup. Ct. 859, 40 L. Ed. 1039.
In Beard v. U. S., 158 U. S. 550, 15 Sup. Ct. 962, 39 L. Ed. 1086; the following rule was quoted with approval: "A true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant who by violence or sur prise maliciously seeks to take his life or to do him enormous bodily harm" ; in Alberty v. II. S., 162 U. S. 499, 16 Sup. Ct. 864, 40 L. Ed. 1051, the rule was stated: "He may law fully kill the assailant ....provided he use all the means in his power otherwise to save his own life, or prevent the intended harm, such as retreating as far as he can, or dis abling him without killing him, if it be in his power." Quoting these two inconsis tent rules, Prof. Beale (16 Harv. L. Rev. 567) considers the cases on this subject at length. On one or two points the author ities agree. If retreat would not diminish the danger, the person assailed may stand his ground; People v. Macard, 73 Mich. 15, 40 N. W. 784; Bird v. State, 77 Wis. 276, 45 N. W. 1126 (that he must retreat unless it would increase the danger; Carter v. State, 82 Ala. 13, 2 South. 766) ; so if he is assailed in his own dwelling house ; Al berty v. U. S., 162 U. S. 499, 16 Sup. Ct. 864, 40 L. Ed. 1051; Eversole v. Com., 95 Ky. 623, 26 S. W. 816.
In Corn. v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, it was finely said by Agnew, J.: "Ordinary defence and the killing of another evidently stand upon different footing. When it comes to a ques tion whether one man shall flee or another shall live, the law decides that the former shall rather flee than that the latter shall die." It is not the duty of a police officer, when not exceeding his authority, to fly when as saulted. He may defend himself with such force as may be necessary, but be may not take life except when the assault is so vio lent as to put him in danger of death or great bodily harm ; but he is not required to flee to the wall ; Com. v. Crowley, 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 124.