According to the penal code in the USA, does self-defense (for example, shooting after a rape) require that the response be in direct proportion to the threat itself, or as the person who shoots reasonably perceives it?

I did a bit of research, but this seems only to complicate the question: the concept introduced here is called “imperfect self-defense”, which, still, is not adopted in all states, so, it is a bit blurry, depending on where you find yourself when that occurs.

No. In cases where someone is under real and immediate physical threat they may use any means available to defend themselves.

If a gun or a knife is the only weapon they can find, they are not obligated to use less than lethal force.

See 10 CFR 1047.7 (a) (2)

If one feels their life is in imminent danger of being forfeited, I’d say shoot. (And shoot to kill.)

No. And it varies from state to state. Rape is not a federal offense, but a local or state one. So the legal recourse will vary across the board.

The same is true with the so-called Stand Your Ground laws, which is what several white people have used to defend themselves against purported black ‘aggression’ here in the US (Florida, for one, is pretty open to killing someone out of fear, justified or not). see this chart

@luigirovatti you really need to learn more about the US legal system and criminal law.

Pretty much most, if not every, states allow for lethal force to be used when one reasonably feels one’s safety is under threat. However, shooting after the fact is not self-defense.

It might be in the eye of a typical citizens. What a normal typical person would do in the same as situation.