Should Self-Defense Law Be Reformed?

Should the self defense law be reformed?

When is it acceptable to protect yourself? Is it when you're nearly beaten to death? Or a more suitable question would be does self defense only apply to certain individuals? Self defense is one of the biggest motives that individuals acclaim to while undergoing criminal court cases. This law specifically states that you are entitled to defend yourself when someone provokes you or pursue you in a violent manner. Although I am favorable of this law, I passionately disagree with certain circumstances where this law has been scene as obscure.

There should be a more precise formality of this law, because there are individuals that are unsure of how they should respond when they are faced with violent aggressors.
Recently In the media I've observed individuals being exploited for over abusing their rights to defend themselves, but it is easy to criticize someone when you have never been faced with such fear, adrenaline, and temptation.This law should be reformed, because it's sort of a contradiction in its entire self. It allows victims to protect themselves while also incriminating them, because not only do you have to prove that you were actually protecting yourself, but you also have to prove that you did not have malicious intentions while defending yourself. There have to be changes implemented in order for people to feel safe and confident about protecting themselves, because there is a small percentage of victims that are comfortable with defending themselves, therefore the death caused by homicide is at a all time high and it will continue to increase

This law seems efficient, however it is biased in many ways, because there have been cases where individuals are seen as victims, but in fact they are the perpetrators.
It is hard enough as it is trying to prove that you are actually defending yourself out of fear and not spite, but it is even worse that some individuals of authority are acquitted of charges without going through the same procedures as others. For example the Michael Brown case, where there was clear evidence that Michael was attempting to disengage the situation but he was still murdered. The police officer in the case was acquitted under the law of self defense but it wasn’t in fact self defense at that point, because Michael Brown didn't oppose a threat at the time. People of authority should be convicted the same as regular citizens, because it is unfair that they provide less evidence then citizens but they are still acquitted of crimes by claiming self defense. If we are going to continue to justify crimes under self defense let's make sure that we are rational and not biased to certain individuals, because by doing so I believe it will lower the crime rates and it will lower the conflict between citizens and the people of
authority.