Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
defendant’s fear at the time of the incident. E.B., 531 So.2d at 1054. As part of that foundation, the defendant must establish that the victim committed some overt act at or about the time of the incident that reasonably indicated a need for action by the defendant in self-defense. Id.; Sanchez v. State, 445 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hager v. State, 439 So.2d 996, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Once the proper foundation is laid, the defendant may introduce evidence of the victim’s reputation or of specific i 356, 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (concluding that the trial court erred by excluding testimony that the victim had a reputation as a bully because there was no showing that the defendant had knowledge of the victim’s reputation); Marcum v. State, 341 So.2d 815, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) . Conversely, the purpose of specific acts
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where an issue is the identity of the initial aggressor it is irrelevant whether the defendant was aware of his adversarys reputation
B. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind
C. holding that being deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony is all that is required and it is irrelevant whether the conviction is valid at the time of sentencing
D. holding that when the factual issue is as between the defendant and the other person who was the aggressor the defendant may introduce evidence of the other persons violent or aggressive character
E. holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.