Is a prosecutor's rebuttal argument for self-defense reasonable?

Regarding the prosecutor's rebuttal argument, appellant claims she told the jury he "had no right to self-defense unless and until he was physically attacked." Not so. Instead, when discussing whether appellant believed he was "instantly about to die or suffer great bodily injury," the prosecutor pointed out that "[n]ot one punch was thrown at the taco truck yet. These are just a bunch of guys challenging each other to a fight." Finally, appellant takes issue with the prosecutor's example of a situation where self-defense would apply, claiming it was "too narrow." The prosecutor referenced a situation of defending oneself and one's family against home invasion. But, of course, it was just an example, and the prosecutor relied on it to argue that appellant had to believe he was in imminent danger and that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger. These rebuttal statements and the prosecutor's example were permissible advocacy and fair comment on the evidence. (People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 216.)