It is one thing to protect yourself from someone trying to give you bodily harm it is another to use deadly force if you "think" you'll be harmed. This kind of mindset would open up the legal flood gates for those with PTSD because they were raped and used deadly force even when there was no evidence that a threat or threatening behavior occured.
The standard (in both Texas and California) is what a
reasonable person would believe.
If the person believed that they were in imminent danger, but a reasonable person would disagree, it's manslaughter. However, a significant number of exceptions have been made for battered women (where PTSD was taken into account).
Person A makes out with Person B. Person A asks Person B to stop. Person B stops to inquire why (whilebstill being in close proximity to Person A). Person B proceeds to kiss Person A on the neck, but Person A shoves Person B away pulls out a gun and shoots Person B. Person B dies, end of story. Now, the tricky part is to decide whether Person A was raped, and that use of deadly force is authorized.
Whether she was
in imminent danger of being sexual assaulted (Texas law) or grievous bodily harm (California law, which includes sexual assault based on the precedent of prior case law).
There's a discrepancy in your example. Did he
stop to inquire why, or did he
proceed to kiss her? For the sake of your example, I'll assume that he stopped long enough to ask the question, but proceeded without waiting for an answer.
She
told him to stop. Despite a clear signal, he proceeded to continue (kissing her, perhaps more) against her wishes.
I'd say that qualifies as
threatening behavior. Innocent men
don't proceed after being told to stop.
Now, laws on use of deadly force especially while not on property may vary from state to state.
Texas has a concealed carry law. If she's licensed to carry, she hasn't broken the law. She is allowed to use that gun to defend herself
anyplace.
Let's assume your example occurred
without witnesses (a reasonable assumption in a rape/self-defense case).
Reputation is going to go a long way. If Person A is an upstanding citizen and Person B is not (criminal record, registered sex offender), the district attorney won't even bother to press charges. If she wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun (no license), she'll be charged with the appropriate weapons violation, not murder.
But reputation bites the other way too. If Person B has the upstanding reputation and Person A doesn't, the jury won't let her get away with shooting an "innocent victim." They simply won't believe her version of the story.
in the above scenario, and if this were to occur in California she most likely would be charged with manslaughter. Because like any prosecutor would do, in the case of any rape case, did any actual rape occur?
Are you saying that she can't defend herself against rape until the rape actually occurs? That's like saying I can't claim self-defense against murder until after I've been killed.
The California penal code does not support your interpretation. Can you refer us to some case law which does?
just by the fact that she pushed him away and assuming that push gave enough space to run away
Have you ever tried to run in high heels? Have you ever tried to run in flip-flops? Have you ever looked at what women wear on their feet?
How far are you assuming she can push him? The average man has 20-30 pounds on the average woman.
In California you cannot discharge your weapon outside your property even in self-defenze. [...] if she pulls out a gun and shoots him and kills him its still manslaughter and illegal discharge of a firearm.
Assuming for a moment that she was in imminent danger of being harmed, where in the California penal code does it indicate that this is manslaughter?
Most people are willing to accept the "illegal discharge" punishment in order to protect themselves from being raped or killed.
If you don't [give a person plenty of space] it's ok to pull a gun out?
That's going to depend on the circumstances. But pulling a gun out (inappropriately) in self-defense is a misdemeanor (at worst). The penalty is less severe than being the actual victim of a rape or homicide.
Your examples [...] Life isn't always like that.
My examples were real-life examples. They were examples where an armed individual legally shot and killed an unarmed individual who did not actually intend them harm.