Was not speaking about GZ. Was speaking about a theoretical situation.
“When someone would have been charged with assault and battery, or attempted murder, based on the situation had the other guy lived; do we really want him to just walk away if he succeeds in killing his opponent?”
This situation applies in a great many situations, notably bar fights where both participants are drunk and belligerent.
The consequences should not be lower for killing a guy under particular circumstances than for just injuring him. And I think SYG can work that say sometimes.
It works that way in many more situations than SYG. Civil damages are often much higher when death is not involved.
Part of the law reads "reasonably cautious and prudent person", and I'd argue that neither apply to a bar room brawl participant.