I shall now read to you a few authorities on this subject of
self-defense. Foster, 273 (in the case of justifiable self-defense):

"The injured party may repel force with force in defense of person,
habitation, or property, against one who manifestly intendeth and
endeavoreth with violence or surprise to commit a known felony upon
either. In these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but pursue his
adversary till he finds himself out of danger; and a conflict
between them he happeneth to kill, such killing is fiable."

I must entreat you to consider the words of this authority. The
injured person may repel force by force against any who endeavoreth
to commit any kind of felony on him or his. Here the rule is, I have
a right to stand on my own defense, if you intend to commit
felony. If any of the persons made an attack on these soldiers, with
an intention to rob them, if it was but to take their hats
feloniously, they had a right to kill them on the spot, and had no
business to retreat. If a robber meet me in the street and command
me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking
any questions. If a person commit a bare assault on me, this will
not justify killing; but if he assault me in such a manner as to
discover an intention to kill me, I have a right to destroy him,
that I may put it out of his power to kill me. In the case you will
have to consider, I do not know there was any attempt to steal from
these persons; however, there were some persons concerned who would,
probably enough, have stolen, if there had been anything to
steal, and many were there who had no such disposition. But this is
not the point we aim at. The question is, Are you satisfied the
people made the attack in order to kill the soldiers? If you are