Throw your hands up, stretching them out in front of your face but in a chill, non-threatening way, and be like, "I don't want any trouble." Step back a bit to get some breathing room from the aggressor, roughly three feet or so. But if they still keep coming at you and you have to land the first punch 'cause you're feeling cornered, here's how the whole scene might be interpreted. Judge's Perspective: - Self-Defense: The fact that you raised your hands in a non-threatening manner, verbally expressed a desire to avoid conflict, and attempted to create distance between you and the aggressor could be seen as evidence that you did not want to engage in a confrontation and felt threatened. - Duty to Retreat: In jurisdictions with a "duty to retreat," your actions of backing up and trying to create distance could be seen as an attempt to retreat from the situation. If the aggressor continued to advance despite your efforts, it might strengthen your claim of self-defense. - Stand Your Ground: In "stand your ground" jurisdictions, even if you could have continued retreating, you might not be legally required to do so if you felt threatened. Your preemptive strike could be justified if you genuinely believed you were in imminent danger. - Imminent Danger: The key factor in many self-defense claims is whether the person genuinely believed they were in imminent danger. The judge would consider the aggressor's actions, your response, and the circumstances leading up to the incident. If it's clear that the aggressor was intent on causing harm despite your attempts to de-escalate, your claim of self-defense could be strengthened. Bystanders Recording the Scenario: - Objective Evidence: A recording can provide an objective account of the events as they unfolded. If the video clearly shows your non-threatening posture, your verbal attempts to de-escalate, and the aggressor's continued advance, it could support your claim of self-defense. - Perception: Bystanders might have varying interpretations based on their perspectives, biases, and understanding of the situation. Some might view your actions as a justified response to a threat, while others might question the necessity of the preemptive strike. The clarity of the recording, the audio quality (to capture what was said), and the events leading up to the recorded incident can all influence perceptions. I'm not a lawyer, so thoughts and insights are welcome 👍