Both guys are at fault in any situation, the guy who provoked the biker for intentionally provoking him and the biker for losing control. If you insult comeone and they punch you, yes you were assualted but that assault was unlikely to happen had you not provoked that person in the first place. If the biker killed the guy who insulted him, he was provoked but used disproportionate force in retaliation and so should face the consequences. If he simply punched the guy and knocked him down he could claim it fair since the guy insulted him. If the biker was killed because he assaulted the person who was rude to him then that guy has to prove he ffelt that level of force was acceptable. After all, the guy started it first by insulting the biker. If you go looking to start trouble and then kill someone who starts the trouble you wanted in the first place, the law shouldn't protect you from killing if that was your intention in the first place. With the Martin case, Zimmerman might have waitied for Martin to hit him so he would be justitfied in killing him because just gunning him down meant he faced jail. Causing a confrontation so you can do what you want and exploit the law to protect yourself should not be acceptable If I were out somewhere and someone verbally abused me or threatened to punch my face in, I am not legally able to do anything until they actually assualt me otherwise I face legal action. If they did hit me and then I hit then back or headbutted them and broke their nose or whatever, I would at least be able to claim I was defending myself against someone who attacked me. Even at work I can't do anything to any customer unless they do something first, or I get fired. I get abused at work all the time, I can do nothing to them unless they engage me with physical violence.