So you’re saying that a guy in a restaurant accidently backs into another guy and spills his drink. The second guy gets right up in his face, nose to nose, and says “Who’s the whore you’re with”, talking about the first guy’s wife standing next to him.
The first guy pushes him back out of his face and he falls down. He then gets up and pulls a knife and runs at the first guy. The first guy pulls out his legal CCW pistol and kills the second guy.
With the first guy “throwing the first punch”, so to speak, you’re saying the first guy cannot now claim self-defense?
In the case you cite the first guy did not precipitate a fight, the second guy did. As I assume a large number of witnesses would be able to verify.
But if you’ve ever seen a bar brawl escalate, I’m sure you will agree it is often difficult to determine “who started it,” in fact it is very often a joint effort.
In such a case the law would deny self-defense to both parties, regardless of which one survived. You shouldn’t get to walk away from a charge of assault with a deadly weapon simply because you succeed in killing your opponent as opposed to merely wounding him.
BTW, the type of case you describe is exactly the reason common law prescribed a “duty to retreat,” to avoid the scenario where testosterone poisoning prevents either party from backing away and de-escalating the situation.
The law recognizes your right to defend your life. Your right to defend your “honor” or pride is less recognized.