Provocation will almost always nullify self defense claims.
If that is true, then the attack itself is de facto justified by the provocation (ie hurty words). Otherwise it would be treated as it should be; an (physically) unprovoked escalation which certainly justifies a response in kind.
Nope. That's not how that works. Both could and would be charged. One would just have more serious charges than the other. It would then be up to a jury to decide. In alot of these cases the initial attacker doesn't even survive to face charges or the DA chooses to not pursue them. Fox would have still been committing assault regardless of provocation
That is literally not even close to what I said. Another retard
If that is true, then the attack itself is de facto justified by the provocation (ie hurty words). Otherwise it would be treated as it should be; an (physically) unprovoked escalation which certainly justifies a response in kind.
Nope. That's not how that works. Both could and would be charged. One would just have more serious charges than the other. It would then be up to a jury to decide. In alot of these cases the initial attacker doesn't even survive to face charges or the DA chooses to not pursue them. Fox would have still been committing assault regardless of provocation