The defence would claim Cam Boy's remark (threat!) in the context of causing fear in Mr. Fat, and argue that Fat's subsequent actions were a direct response to that fear, for which he could not be expected to take full responsibility. If you like, Mr. Fat's actions will be seen as 'heat of the previous moment'.
Well you can keep maintaining that if you like - but 2 things:-
1. This is in New Zealand - so either nuances of either the english or scottish legal system and / or court techniques may not be that representative
2. The english judicial system has roundly denied justification for that sort of behaviour, when it involved, say, pursuing somebody (eg burglar chased and beaten, burglar shot as he was running away) - or in this example, somebody turning around after a bit of whiny mithering from camera guy
It's one thing to suggest fear might make somebody lash out in defence, but not turn around walk up to somebody, and go for them - that just wouldn't fly, not when currently
only faced with some annoying comments - all other things being equal, it simply wouldn't work.
Any connection with some comments about collisions on the track, made some minutes earlier, are hardly going to be decent mitigation, provocation, or a consideration of fear for somebody as a direct response, when it happened some minutes before, and the only thing he was responding to at that point was a bit of self-righteous waffle that camera guy should have let go, if his only defence was to rely on some camera strapped to his head.
I'm not here defending camera guy, per se, nor am I totally castigating Mr Rock Shox - I'm just saying provocation, or heat of the moment based on some comments out on the track, won't work for mitigation for stopping, turning around, walking back to Mr Irritating, and whatever physical contact happened next.
Such violence couldn't get justified as heat of the moment from some earlier moment - that danger (if there was any...) had passed, there was no immediate threat, and heat of the moment won't get tolerated if all he was having to tolerate was some whiny complaints from a guy who he had to STOP, TURN AROUND AND WALK BACK TO in order to have any further physical contact.
Because his behaviour does not suggest fear - because he walked back to camera guy, it suggests anger.