Timing, mistaken perception and distinct legal tests

A Czech legal study group compares three simplified situations. In the first, an unlawful human attack is directly impending. In the second, the attack has ended and the former victim proposes a later punitive act. In the third, a person perceives an attack that the available evidence suggests did not actually exist. The group has not been given every fact required for a real criminal or civil decision. One member nevertheless asserts that a firearms authorization guarantees justification in all three situations. Another imports a foreign rule requiring exactly matched weapons. The task is to identify the separate legal questions and evidential limits, not to recommend a use of force or predict a guaranteed court outcome.