Did the Oregon courts err in holding that there is no Constitutional right of self-defense except for when someone like the judge would have behaved the same way under a purely "objective" "reasonable person" standard, thus excluding all evidence of defendant's prior experiences, defendant's state of mind at the time, and defendant's intent in general?

Did the Oregon courts err in holding that there is no Constitutional right of self-defense except for when someone like the judge would have behaved the same way under a purely 'objective' 'reasonable person' standard, thus excluding all evidence of defendant's prior experiences, defendant's state of mind at the time, and defendant's intent in general?