When I was in high school I worked at a bowling alley in town. During league bowling a fight broke out inside the bowling alley. I was in the back when the fight broke out. When I came out from the back I saw my dad chocking out a very large man between two of the lanes and another man sitting on the chest of a guy beating his face to a pulp (literally). Should I have jumped immediately to the belief that my dad and this other man were the ones who initiated the fight? If so, why? If not, why not? Why are you and others accepting of one man's story where there are no witnesses which can verify his claims of self-defense, and where there is no evidence that the person killed had done a single thing wrong other than be in a confrontation with someone who could have initiated that confrontation?
Nore did I say that I did. Dang! you're an amazingly neurotic person. You just go off on wild emotional tangents at the drop of a hat.
I'm not. I am trying to show how ridiculous you are for jumping to the opposite conclusion. Here you are projecting again.