90% of self defense cases end in the tribunal, meaning that the judges saw it as not-self-defense. The biggest factor in all this is proportionality: if you killed someone in self defense but were not yourself having your life threatened, you will go to court.

Running away is a good idea for many reasons, but very few US states or foreign jurisdictions have a duty to retreat as you’re describing here.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...

After that remark became massively controversial he attempted to walk his statement back and claim that he just meant that he said he was against the presumption of self defence (which seems to imply he supports a presumption of guilt in self defence cases).

https://www.europe1.fr/politique/oppose-a-la-legitime-defens...

Basically every country in the world that has somewhat stable law and order has a history of prosecuting dubious self defence cases. The requirement for the state to have a monopoly on violence might sound edgy, but it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a requirement for being able to enforce the law. Self defence is an almost universally justifiable reason for a person to violate the monopoly, and it’s not hard to understand why government agencies can end up viewing it as an existential threat, not to the country or its people, but to their own institutions.

For example, this is professor Wael Hallaq of Columbia University describing some defining characteristics of the modern state:

"there are five form-properties possessed by the modern state without which it cannot, at this point in history, be properly conceived. These are:

(1) its constitution as a historical experience that is fairly specific and local;

(2) its sovereignty and the metaphysics to which it has given rise;

(3) its legislative monopoly and the related feature of monopoly over so-called legitimate violence;

(4) its bureaucratic machinery; and

(5) its cultural- hegemonic engagement in the social order, including its production of the national subject"