The point was that it goes both ways.
Unless someone was also trying to beat you up after you fell on the concrete, I don't think your fall necessarily has any relevance either. In fact, I don't think it does regardless of the circumstances. And certainly doesn't prove anything at all beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance. all jmo
No, if we follow this NR reasoning, i.e. if Z didn't know how serious his head injury was or going to be, or not going to be, he had the right to assume that it was serious enough to kill? Doesn't make any sense, IMHO, because Z already *is* claiming the injuries and threats were serious enough to kill TM.
Z claimed this fear of being killed, but then he had to provide enough proof that he had to go for the last resort, i.e. killing the unarmed other. Physically, his claims of severe injuries failed. No evidence of severe beating exists, only bruises common among brawlers. Surrounded by neighbors, the LE on its way, with a gun in his hands, and he was still in mortal fear of an unarmed TM after 2 minutes of fighting?
It is a physiological question, When your head is banged against the concrete, when you are concussed, is it possible to scream like that, vigorously, continuously?
In my own experience with even very light head trauma, when I fell off my bike, I was simply too dazed, stunned, disoriented, even when I needed to cry out for help, I was completely unable to do so for a while due to the head injury.
IMHO:twocents: