List the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Charles Haynes was entitled to the defense of self-defense.
Under the law of the jungle a good offense may be the best defense. But although prisons are nasty places, they are not jungles-and it is the law of the United States rather than Hobbes’ state of nature that regulates inmates’ conduct. Haynes concedes that he never reported Flores-Pedroso to the guards or sought protection-protection a prison is constitutionally obliged to provide. Haynes asserted in his offer of proof: He could not go to “the police” – a term used to describe the guards. If the guards elected to take him out of population, he would be forced to stay in administrative segregation which meant 24-hour-per-day lock-up. If his protective custody status resulted in a transfer, all the inmates of the receiving institution would know that he was in protective custody, for being victimized by another inmate and by being a “snitch,” which would result in further victimization and perhaps invite an assault by not just one inmate, but several. If Haynes went to the guards and they did not believe him and left him in population, things would only get worse. He would certainly be attacked, not only by [Flores] Pedroso, but by others who labeled him a “snitch.” Haynes did not believe he could go to the guards and help himself in any appreciable way.