The use of force against another is not justified to resist an arrest that the defendant knows is being made by a peace officer, even though the arrest is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified.
The use of force to resist an arrest is justified:
(1)if, before the person being arrested offers any resistance, the peace officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make an arrest, and
(2)when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
If, before a person offers any resistance, the peace officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, and such person being arrested reasonably believes that force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's use or attempted use of unlawful force, provided he used only such degree of force as he reasonably believed necessary to protect himself against such officer's unlawful force, and no more.
In determining whether a defendant acted in self-defense against the use of force greater than necessary by a peace officer making an arrest, the jury should place itself in the defendant's place and view the facts and circumstances from his standpoint at the time; and if it reasonably appeared to him that his life or person was in danger from the use of unlawful force by the peace officer, even though such danger may have been apparent and not real, he would have a right to defend his life and person as fully and to the same extent as he would had the danger been real, provided he acted upon a reasonable apprehension of danger as it appeared to him from his standpoint at the time, and that he reasonably believed such force was immediately necessary to protect himself against the officer's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
In determining the existence of real or apparent danger, it is your duty also to consider all of the facts and circumstances in evidence in the case, and consider the words, acts, and conduct, if any, of the officer at the time and prior to the time of the alleged offense, and in considering such circumstances, you should place yourselves in the defendant's position at that time and view them from his standpoint alone.
"Reasonable belief" as applied to the law of self-defense as explained hereinabove is meant a belief that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the defendant.
"Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
Therefore, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the occasion in question the defendant, (DEFENDANT), did cause bodily injury to (COMPLAINANT) by biting (COMPLAINANT) or by striking (COMPLAINANT) with his hand, as alleged, and you further find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that (COMPLAINANT) was attempting to arrest the defendant, but you further find from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that prior to the defendant's offering any resistance, it reasonably appeared to the defendant, viewed from his standpoint at the time that (COMPLAINANT) was using or attempting to use more force than was reasonably necessary to arrest the defendant and that there was created in his mind a reasonable expectation or fear of bodily injury from unlawful force at the hand of (COMPLAINANT), and that, acting under such apprehension, and reasonably believing that the use of force on his part was immediately necessary to protect himself against such unlawful force, he bit (COMPLAINANT) or struck (COMPLAINANT), then you should acquit the defendant on the grounds of self-defense; or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was so acting in self-defense on said occasion under said circumstances, then you should give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty.