I have to admit that after I read the jury's instructions about 20 minutes ago

[Igel]

5. It's a self-defense thing.

It seems. It's not a problem with the manslaughter law. Volokh argues that the law between states is substantially the same, descended essential from Common Law.

You can't provoke a fight, take a swing, and automatically kill them when they respond. Most of the time you're not in fear for your life if the fight's fairly equitable or doesn't go past a certain point. Then you're allowed to use self-defense, but it also has to be limited. If you really fear for your life and the force is (or appears to be) sufficient against you that you need to kill to live, *and* the jury finds that normal, reasonable people in that situation would have done likewise, then it's justifiable. That's my poor understanding of it. That last bit rules out paranoid cowards from just kiling everybody who goes "boo!" at them, I guess. Or frivolous claims.

However, if you have a chance to back off as you defend yourself, you're required to take it. So if GZ had been on top of TM, then he would have had a way to back off. That might have made all the difference in the verdict.

Or if had been the case that TM did strike and topple GZ but then just kicked him a few times and ran, that might have precluded the justifiable use of lethal force beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have resulted in assault charges for TM, but that's better than death.