What is the test for determining whether a defendant acted in self-defense when he was assaulted by a victim?

imminent [citation], and '. . . any right of self-defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.]'" (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064-1065 (Minifie).) Whether a defendant reasonably acted in self-defense "is determined from the point of view of a reasonable person in the defendant's position. The jury must consider all the facts and circumstances it might '"expect[] to operate on [defendant's] mind . . . ." [Citation.]'" (Id. at p. 1065.) Evidence that the victim of the assault threatened a defendant is relevant in determining whether the defendant acted in self-defense. (Ibid.) The jury may also consider evidence that a defendant was threatened by a person or persons other than the victim if the defendant reasonably associated the victim with the third party threats. (Id. at pp. 1065-1069.) However, "[e]vidence of third party threats is relevant only if other evidence shows fear of imminent harm," and "third party threats inherently carry less weight than threats from the victim." (Id. at p. 1070.)

2. Analysis