It's part of the same statute. You read statutes as a whole -- you do not interpret one part to void the clear meaning of another part. And nothing could be clearer or more specific than parts A and B of that statute: if the attack is in your house, vehicle, or place of business, the presumption that you're in imminent peril (and therefore justified in using deadly force instead of retreating) doesn't apply if the attacker is also lawfully in that place. The presumption (and thus the defense) only applies if the attacker has no legal right to be there. It's said more than once -- that language is no accident. You can't pretend it's not there by reading another section to negate it.
So the so-called "catchall" in Section C would only apply to situations not already directly and more specifically covered in sections A and B.
Section C could apply to the bar fight scenario. You're lawfully in the bar, someone attacks you; you have the right to meet force with force.
It strikes me as rather a poorly written statute, because it seems to me that if someone attacked his partner in a bar, she could potentially invoke section C. But if he attacked her in the home they share, Sections A and B would mean the statute doesn't apply, and she'd have to fall back on a self-defense argument. Does that make sense to me? Not really. But that's what the statute says.
I'm guessing the intent was for the entire statute to apply to attacks by strangers and not to domestic abuse. But IMO the language of Section C does leave an opening for domestic abuse cases where the abuse occurs outside the home. Hey, don't blame me. I didn't write the thing.
