In the anti-homicide case, some people who clashed with Wu Mou once participated in evil forces' crimes. It can be said that Wu Mou had been enemies with some of them. When the contradiction accumulated irreconcilable, it broke out in this anti-killing case, from the initial quarrel to the fight until one of them died.
However, before the final judgment of the law came out, it was not really over, because these cases were highly related and the court handled them case by case. Wu Mou's lawyer thinks that there is no correlation, so there is no Wu Mou's subjective intention and behavior of gathering people to fight and kill, that is, Wu Mou's behavior belongs to self-defense.
In my opinion, this case does have some relevance. If there were no contradictions before, a simple party could not have caused such consequences. It is precisely because the previous contradiction accumulated to the anti-killing case that the subsequent behavior occurred, so Wu Mou's justifiable defense was not established. In the anti-killing case, although it was provoked by others, because there were contradictions before, once there was a quarrel, it was bound to amplify the previous contradictions. When the case happened, these people were armed and shouted at each other to fight.
Wu Mou used a dagger when he killed people, and the other party also brought a dagger before he came. Although the other party hit him first, the contradiction had already started before, and it was puzzling that Wu Mou carried a dagger with him. Who brings a dagger to a party? Therefore, in my opinion, Wu Mou's anti-killing does not belong to self-defense, let alone excessive defense as his lawyer said. Wu Mou should be sentenced for intentional homicide.