entitled to jury instructions on any theory of defense finding support in the law and the evidence.’’). For present purposes, therefore, we must credit Arvin’s contentions that he merely "pushed and shoved” after being struck by Russell and that his actions were motivated by a desire to avoid being hit again. Thus, even though Arvin could have caused Russell’s death, the facts and the law permit Arvin’s actions to be characterized as self-defense. See United States v. Begay, 833 F.2d 900, 901 (10th Cir.1987) (self-defense instruction warranted when defendant "attempts to use nondeadly force,” but does so in manner resulting in death) (quoting United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 915 (9th Cir.1983)); see also People v. Sam, 71 Cal.2d 194, 77 Cal.Rptr. 804, 454 P.2d 700, 710-11 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Garramone v. State, 636 So.2d 869, 871
holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that an officer cannot use further nondeadly force against a restrained and subdued suspect holding that instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force was of the essence of appellants defense and clearly should have been given holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense