Not sure I'm gonna communicate this right.
Two bad guys can have a shoot-out, and yet one party will have the ability to claim self defense, if only because one party didn't shoot until after being shot at. Two bad people can shoot each other and then argue who performed a legit't shoot. Sure, maybe both are charged with various crimes. But really, self-defense should be universal, specific circumstances not withstanding. A dirty, low-down, good for nothing, jack-wad is allowed to protect himself. The Prosecutor can determine merits. I'm thinking Indy's prosecutor is preoccupied with politics while being burdened by law.