And we skip some stuff and go to the end of the road and your other question: “what are they supposed to do?” Well- generally speaking, I don’t personally recommend “get killed,” it’s an option- but not one I’d opt for. Even jail is generally preferable. So what to do?
1. Avoid the situation if at all possible. Going to the real life version of the bar in road house- good odds you will get in a fight. Best not to go there if you want to avoid trouble. Fighting with an unstable friend or lover- especially one with a history of violence etc? Maybe don’t press the argument, perhaps not the best time to “go over and give them a piece of your mind” or “demand your money in person” etc. bring friends if you must or call the police and request they escort you to get belongings etc. or just don’t go in person. Call. Text. Send certified letter. Have an attorney send a letter. Communicate through a mutual intermediary like…

… waste of time? Well… then it likely goes to the point where courts get involved. A pre trial is among other things, a place where cases can end before they start. Attorneys can bring motions to dismiss, key pieces of evidence or entire strategies can be denied, bargains can be made ahead of time and put before the judge to avoid the fuss of a trial and for the accused, potentially land them a lighter sentence or better odds at reduced sentencing or charges on the principle that the deal is concrete of accepted, a trial has potential to end in a “worst case.” Etc.

Now, in a “100% open and shut” case of self defense- speaking on criminal charges (as civil charges can essentially be brought up by just about anyone..) those charges likely won’t go anywhere. The initial investigation will not turn up a crime, and that will more or less be the end of it unless one of two things happens.
1. The other person makes a huge stink and presses the right buttons to force the issue. Eg: media attention, political pressure etc.
2. A prosecutor takes interest in the case. Perhaps as part of a bid for re election or promotion, to “pad” numbers due to policy pressure, or the previously mentioned political/media pressure and/or connections and favors.
Now, in our 100% open ad shut example- it is generally unlikely a prosecutor will want to touch the case. It’s a loser.
End.
So what happens if it isn’t 100% open and shut- such as “he said she said” without sufficient hard evidence or circumstantial evidence etc. to make the case an obvious loser or…

A crucial aspect of many justice systems such as the American justice system is that anyone can bring charges against anyone in theory. So even in a 100% “open and shut” case of self defense- there is still the possibility that the attacker can request charges against the defender. The basic criteria of proving that you need the recipient of force is met when the other party admits “yes. I hit them, but it was self defense…” the second part is opinion, the first part is fact. The trial process is to sort out the things to be debated, but once you’ve admitted to use of force for whatever reason- there exists the possibility that force was unjustified, and thusly an investigation can be requested.

Even when video footage exists, it is often the case that people do not begin filming until it is clear a situation will likely escalate or already has. This leaves the critical events leading up to the escalation or use of force undocumented. Since factors like motive of the party claiming self defense, or actions by the party claiming self defense before the force was used often factor in to the validity of the claim under law, if one cannot prove to the standard of the court that their actions meet the criteria of self defense, or if based on the available evidence prosecution can prove to the standard of the court it was not self defense- the self defense plea cannot be used. In US courts a jury will be instructed to ignore a self defense plea if under law the plea is not valid.
Invalidating the claim will generally occur at pre trial etc, disproving the claim generally occurs at trial of the claim is allowed.

- the force used by the person claiming self defense is excessive to the “reasonable person.” Eg: Bob and Bill are perceived to be reasonably comparable in ability. Bob strikes Bill in the arm with a punch for which Bill receives light bruising or no discernible mark,, Bill punches Bob in the face and breaks Bob’s nose. This could go either way but could be seen as excessive; or Bob punches Bill and Bill hits Bon with a bottle etc.
- perhaps one of the most common ones, and the predominant factor in Thurston:
It cannot be determined who needed to defend themselves from whom. In Thurston- both parties allege the other pulled a knife on them first, or that they had a knife pulled on them but didn’t do so back. As is common in such scenarios- it can be difficult or impossible to determine who has the most accurate recollection or version of events.

They were also charged with unauthorized entry as it wasn’t Thurston home and he wasn’t invited in. That charge was dismissed due to factors like relationship between the parties and circumstances etc.
the self defense claim was made but rejected.
As previously said- many factors can cause something to be ruled not self defense.
- the danger one is defending against was created by the person claiming self defense.
Eg: a threat of violence is made or the other party has reasonable cause to fear for their safety; the person claiming self defense instigates conflict such as via goading or taunting, the person claiming self defense put themselves in a position by choice against the option not to in which an escalated situation wouldn't exist had they not entered the situation.

The downvote was cancelled by an upvote. I just make it a principle not to downvote people over simple differences in opinion, but when I see a downvote I don’t want the misconception that it was myself. If I disagree I will use my words is all, and disagreement to me doesn’t necessarily warrant negative actions or feelings.
To the subject at hand:

@karlboll- lol. No worries.
Report: “Oral conception. Impregnation via the proximal gastrointestinal tract in a patient with an aplastic distal vagina”
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Author: Douwe A. A. Verkuyl.

… so I mean- it can be a fun premise like many “campfire stories,” but it really isn’t so deep or novel. It’s something many have essentially experienced in one form or another, and in the end- like so many things in life, things are good and then they aren’t. Things come and then they pass. Wether “real” or otherwise- seasons change and we grow old. Loves come into our lives and someday leave them. We dream and then we wake up. That’s true of “bad” things too. They come and go.

So sorry, it is completely true that not everyone that gets pregnant is female regardless of a persons beliefs on issues of gender identity or whatever else*, it is a medical fact backed by genetics and science regardless of your personal feelings. Not everyone who gets pregnant is female.

Well- I’ve got you covered. Some genetically “female” persons are born without external genitals. No vagina. There are documented cases of women without vaginas becoming pregnant. One such case occurred when such a woman gave a blow job and was stabbed in the abdomen- against astronomical odds, the nature of the injury allowed the semen to impregnate her directly. So even if we try to identify females as those with vaginas regardless of genetics- still true.
4. So what if one believes that a uterus makes a woman? Surely no one gets pregnant without a uterus…well…. They totally do. It’s called “ectopic pregnancy.”
Pregnancy outside the uterus- including in those without a uterus. Which again- has happened and is on record.

Not false, regardless of one’s stance in gender and sexual identities.
1. If you are of the opinion that a person can identify as male or female; or that a biological female who has gender reassignment surgery is “male” then it is true.
2. If you do not believe a persons gender and sexual identity are independent or can be “changed” from their genetics at birth… it is still true that not everyone who is pregnant is female. Genetically, most “hermaphrodites” are XY chromosome. For a “traditionalist” of gender- that would make them “male.” However, it is possible for a hermaphrodite (or intersex person) to have functional reproductive organs of either or both sex(es).
This isn’t hypothetical either- there are documented pregnancies in “hermaphrodites.”
3. Let’s say that you want to be a smarty pants or are just an odd duck and you just define gender based on someone’s genitals?
You’re a person that says: “that with penis is male, that with Vagina is female..”?

So each individual generally seeks their self interest, and generally the attainment of what they believe to be their self interest is the priority. From this form groups dedicated to the same or mutually compatible self interests. From the actions of these individuals and groups comes large spanning change and actions of “historical significance” in scale or scope. So regardless of the time or place and various specifics- largely, little changes in the overall pursuit of self interest and within individual lifetimes or generations there generally aren’t significant changes to fundamental realities which would create a great difference in causality between the seeking of these interests and the effects of those actions. The major change over time is mostly that as population increases and technology advances, our ability to cause drastic and potentially destructive changes increases as well as the ability for information and ideas- thus cycles of action- to propagate more quickly.

.. overuse and misapplication of the defense by those who believe it is some sort of universal get out of jail free card have clouded information, not helped by the fact that laws differ place to place and of course, judges and juries don’t always vote the same even if the circumstances seem casually or directly similar in two cases.

.. of assault. Thurston appealed the conviction and the assault was upheld on appeal. There are countless other examples involving fists and knives and guns and even one involving a hibachi grill as a weapon… and many many more from strange to mundane because as I said earlier, and you can confirm for yourself if you want to read various jurisdictional laws concerning self defense- generally speaking, there are criteria which determine assault vs self defense. There are differences in concepts like “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground laws” as well as wether a jurisdiction allows either or both of these in self defense and what if any criteria are required to apply such clauses to self defense. The entire concept gets far more complex than “hit for a hit.”
If you want more cases involving fists on fists you’ll probably have to search local crime files as such cases tend to be minor news and rejection of the self defense plea is fairly common as much like the “insanity defense”…

1. I didn’t downvote you.
2. Your question is… difficult to parse. If they are found guilty of assault then they were found to either not be acting in self defense or to have been unreasonable in their actions. If it is the latter you are looking for, just Google “guy shoots someone for no reason…” or something like that. If you want the former…
Most you will find easily online will involve weapons since there generally isn’t a reason for media to carry stories that often don’t even make the local paper crime blotter like a domestic violence call resulting in an assault charge.
3. As a “gimme” I provide “State (of Maine) Vs. Thurston (2009, docket Han-08-205) in which after a domestic dispute occurred at his on again off again romantic partners (Harmon’s) home, a knife was pulled and Thurston restrained Harmon, in his words in self defense. This is the short version- but the Jury was not instructed in self defense due to the nature of the facts on review and found Thurston guilty…

If we are only talking about a legally defined charity- recognized by some governing body or such- the scope narrows but as stated previously- there’s still a whole world of ways to “game” the system to service you best.

So there are all these little ways, charitable trusts or any number of things similar to what I mention above- that can be used- or abused (depending on your perspective…) so that you can actually benefit from giving charity- often theoretically more so than those your charity supposedly serves, far beyond a simple tax wrote off for money donated. And that’s without getting into “what does ‘charity’ mean here?” Because there are numerous legal definitions of the word, numerous philosophical or technical interpretations. In theory- giving your child or spouse money could be considered charity (generally not legally- but if we just use the definition of the word..) in the sense of the English definition of the word, “giving to charity” simply means to give to one in need. “Need” is Ill defined. You don’t “need” a home for example, but we would count A homeless person as “In need” etc.

So the mayors wife basically runs this place as a hobby structured a a charity that pays her a salary. It makes the mayors wife happy, thus the mayor, and a little bit maybe comes back to the mayors families pockets to boot. So donating a large sum to that charity, that could buy you a little favor with the mayor. Regularly donating to such a charity- there doesn’t have to be an explicit understanding, It’s implied that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. You don’t NEED to say to a savvy person “do me this favor or I’ll stop donating..” the implication is already there that when someone relies on your charity that to upset you might cost them patronage.

Your charity can go towards Enabling films or it can be used to enhance a community- even your own community or a community close to you. Likewise, donating to the charities started by rich and influential people can buy off the record favor. A large donation to the charity ran by the mayors wife that funds the museum of art history the mayors wife enjoys… that’s basically a way for her to buy art that she likes. She can’t “own it” but effectively controls it, can see it any time, and has access to it. She doesn’t have the direct liabilities of ownership, and in perception, a person who’s home is full of millions of dollars in art is a target for those bemoaning inequity. A person running an art program to allow the public access to such works, and preserve history- they’re seen as more a sympathetic/likable person.

When you create a charity, you can choose what it is. That means you can try and find something that you enjoy or that serves your interests. You can draw a salary for engaging in activities you’d engage in anyway, or otherwise couldn’t get paid as well to do. These are simplified examples and such- but say you like hiking and nature. If you create a charity park space, you can enjoy the park while “working there.” The charity buys a hero for park agents- now you can drive that jeep all day. You can buy other equipment under the charity as well to enable your mission. Music programs, festivals, art productions or installations, animal programs… there are limits on the political activities of 501 charities- but you can also do some direct and indirect political action through your charity, and if you aren’t acting overly politically you can influence politics and cultures through social programs or other means via your charity.