I've heard a lot of very good arguments about how the shooter might not be able to use self-defense as an affirmative excuse for firing at his attacker because he had earlier shoved a female, and that this might well be interpreted as "picking the fight". As we know here in Arizona, you can't claim that your use of lethal force was justified if you were the one responsible for initiating the conflict in the first place.
However,...I think another legitimate counter-argument here in this instance is that he did not shoot anyone whom he is supposed to have initiated a conflict with. The girl she shoved was indeed among those who pursued him and attacked him,...but he did not shoot her or attempt to. Rather, a person uninvolved in the "assault" the shooter seems to have made upon the girl chose to interject himself into the fray and choose of his own volition to bludgeon the shooter with a potentially lethal implement. Can it even be claimed that the shooter initiated that man's assault upon the shooter? If not, then is not the shooter within his rights to defend himself?
I can see that if the girl he shoved moments before was the person who whacked him over the head with a skateboard and he shot her,...yes, then there could be a strong argument for negating the act of self-defense as an affirmative justification. But that's not what happened. And even after trying to look at it from the other side,...I still see him as justified.
