If the jury has no reason to contemplate the victim's right to self-defense, then there is no purpose to a trial. Everyone who claims self-defense can just go home, nothing to see here. The reason I say this is because establishing why the victim got into the situation where the defendant felt they needed to kill is a key to setting up the motive of the killer. If the killer makes the first physical contact, they are supposed to be declared the aggressor and therefore have no right to a self-defense justification. Therefore, by not deciding if the victim has a right to self-defense in such a situation, we are using the killer's narrative as the basis for deciding if the killer is guilty or not. As we keep coming back to it, killers will lie if they think they can get away with it. Therefore the killer's testimony should be analyzed to make sure that the victim was justifiably defending themselves against the killer, and did not just coincidentally happen to do something so terrible that the killer had justification for self-defense claims.

Continuing the hypothetical: If someone follows you for several blocks in their car while you are walking back to someone else's house which is not your own (friend, relative, etc -- this is because you are, for whatever reason, not in your normal neighbourhood), and they do not identify themselves but instead keep slowly following you in their car. At a certain point, they get out of their car and begin walking your direction, quickly trying to close the gap between the two of you. When they reach you, their first question is "What are you doing around here?" Now, is this hypothetical person behaving aggressively? If the answer is yes, then the definition of "aggressor" needs to be changed as I said before. If the answer is no, I'd like to know why.