[jyl]

Lot of talk about whether some laws and some cases and verdicts are or are not right. So, let's start from scratch, and design a standard that is right.

Rules for this thread: NO reference to any existing law or precedent, NO reference to any actual people, cases, events or trials. NONE of that is relevant. You want to re-hash that stuff, go to PARF along with the other people who can't control themselves.

We're trying to hypothetically roll back the clock to before anything bad has happened, and are going to decide what the rules should be in our hypothetical world, based simply on our collective sense of what is right and fair and wrong and bad.

Here is the situation:
- Mr. A physically assaults Mr. B. Mr. A is not responding to any physical threat or clear provocation from Mr. B. The assault is bare-handed but genuine, a violent attack with fists and feet. No other weapon.
- Mr. B fights back with equal violence. With fists and feet. No other weapon.
- Mr. A produces a weapon and kills Mr. B. Uses a gun or a knife.

What should be the result? The village is gathered to decide. Thumbs can go up, or down.

Does it matter if, or if not:
- Mr. A and Mr. B are equal in age, size, strength, and fighting experience and ability? Suppose they are unequal? Suppose one of the Misters is a Missus?
- Mr. B is "winning" the fight, when Mr. A kills him? Suppose Mr. B is just "holding even"? How about if Mr. A is "winning" at that point? What is "winning"?
- Mr. A says, during the fight, that he is ready to stop fighting? Does Mr. B have to believe him?
- What else would make a difference in the correct result?