If there are no witnesses and I'm attacked by someone with no history of violent crime, and beat them unconscious and maybe they get seriously hurt. Crack their scull when they fall or what not. Whose going to get charged with assault? It's my word against his that he attacked me. Maybe criminal charges get dropped but then there's a million dollar civil suit for the guys injuries.

Police officers have to follow a continuum of force, Use their commanding voice, then pepper spray, then their gun. They have color coded body charts to tell them what areas are OK to hit at certain levels of force. This makes sense because they are given weapons and expected to use them responsibly, and they are expected to assume a certain about of risk.

But like we saw in the one video of the cop who got his ass beat while following that chain, by the time he got to the point of using he gun he was already overwhelmed by his attacker.

Civilian self defense is held to similar if not the same standards, in that we have to use the minimum amount of force to defend our selves. And that minimum standard is determined by a jury of our peers after the fact, who were not even there.

If we are attacked we are expected to put our selves at greater risk to prevent the possibility of hurting our attackers too much?!

"Well did you tell him the man beating you to Stop?"
"Did you try pushing him away?
"After you hit him the first time did you wait to see if he'd give up?"

Our laws are heavily based on a religion or at least the moral frame work stemming from it, that says not the innocent, or the just, or the righteous, but he the meek will inherit the earth.

In schools don't they suspend both kids, for fighting, regardless of the circumstances?