> This is actually what baffles me about this case. How could a
> reasonable person draw a conclusion that a person who originally
> stalked and challenged another person can become a victim.
This happens all the time. You're not stupid enough to stalk and challenge people, but it turns out that just beause you are being stalked and challeneged doesn't mean you aren't capable of inflicting grave bodily harm yourself.
Z is clearly a stupid man; but that's still not a crime.
> To reiterate - the conclusion that Z was a victim because he was
> injured by M during a scuffle that Z started is based on a
> fundamentally false logic of the variety that X who killed his
> parents deserves leniency because he is an orphan.
I think you would do well to at least read the wikipedia article on the principle of self-defense. It generally conatins no reference at all to how you found yourself in the threat of imminent grave harm. So while your grasp of the obvious about orphans is superb, it has no relevance to this issue. I feel quite certain that this is the source of your mind being boggled by the outcome of the case: you're simply not working with the information needed to make a relevant decision.
/jordan