An argument could very well be made that practically pile driving someone is a disproportionate response to getting socked in the jaw a couple times, but it's hard to debate who instigated the conflict when one person is backing away the whole time the other is hitting him in the face, and only responds physically when his back is literally against the wall. Even if he'd been "talking trash" at the other kid (and I believe we've discussed the well established legal validity of "fighting words" as justification for physical violence) getting punched in the face a few times had clearly ended that, and that's where it should've ended under those circumstances. Likewise, if the kid who was being bullied had jumped on the other one and kept hitting him after dropping him on his head there'd be no question his response was disproportionate, but he didn't do that; he waited to see how the other kid would respond, and when he saw that response was simply to stagger unsteadily away, he didn't pursue him.

In the final analysis I don't think it's just or advisable to punish someone if it can be definitively established that they merely defended themselves and nothing more. Self defense is not wrong, and when the rules have already failed by making self defense necessary, they should not deliberately fail the victim yet again by further victimizing him. No one should be expected to "pay" that "price" for personal security, nor should anyone be expected to "pay" the "price" of taking a beating to avoid punishment for simply protecting themselves--especially when it might not do any good; how many times did one of your sons admit that his brother never fought back when you broke up one of their scuffles?

I firmly believe in the duty to retreat. Physical violence should be avoided when possible, but the laws in many states that prosecute people for killing someone who's invaded their home and put their family at risk are ridiculous and wrong to me. When someone's got a knife to your wifes throat that should be provocation enough to shoot them; you shouldn't have to wait until AFTER he's put it through her heart to avoid prosecution, and prosecuting someone for preventing that on the grounds that "well, prosecution ensures he won't fight back unless he must" is senseless to me. That's vastly different from this case in degree, but not in kind.