We actually did have such a quirk in our law, up until it was reversed in 2006. Until then, the law stated that a person who used deadly force in an act of self-defense was required to prove his innocence, rather than the way it is in the rest of the country - innocent until proven guilty.
They did have that quirk, but I was referring to a quirk that said that deadly force couldn’t be used to prevent serious (grevious?) bodily harm. The story read that way - that deadly force could only be used if you reasonably thought you were going to be killed. It was wrong.