Answer-Yes, clearly self defense.

Nice snark, clearly directed at me, in your description @Buttle.

Mixon is not a disabled person or someone not used to violence, so it would clearly be harder to make a point that he feared for his life, but also clearly he should have feared for his safety, he was hit twice by a nutjob that was emboldened by idiots that think you can't hit a woman in the face...they have faces, don't they?

Had he gone to trial with the video, he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a thing, at worst it might be argued that it was mutual combat, even though it was clearly self defense, he even let her get away with the first physical attack and only (properly) retaliated after the second.
The incident was allegedly started by Molitor and her boyfriend who were loudly hurling racial slurs at Mixon, then attacked him physically when he tried to walk away....twice.

I think it's awful he took the plea, he should have stood up for himself, but I think the video proof wasn't made available to him so it was her word against his, and she claimed he was the sole aggressor. Sadly, because of people like the video poster who seem to believe that a woman attacker can't be defended against under any circumstances, he saw the writing on the wall that no matter how justified his actions were, he would likely be made to pay for them.

That woman shouldn't get a dime though, she clearly started the fight. Start a fight like a man with a man, you'll get punched like a man. That's called equality.

Ya, what's up with that? What's with the concern over words? I mean, your next president has proven that words don't mean anything and nothing you say will have any consequence.

I do have to say, after viewing the video, I'd have kicked his ass so hard he'd have to stand on his head to take a shit.

Unless she had a weapon, he was never in any danger. He just belted her because he was pissed off.

You must be a pretty sturdy dude, if you could actually do that. Oops, was that snarky?

So, a woman or weaker man can just punch and scratch you in the face all day, and you'll do nothing and never fear for your safety?
I doubt it.
Get repeatedly physically attacked by a crazy, violent, race baiting, but smaller woman (or smaller man) then judge.
If it were a man exactly her size that hit him twice and hurled racial slurs, would you still think his reaction wrong? If not, you're just being sexist, if so, please explain.

6' 3", and a little chunky at 345lbs. I also fight dirty, when I do.

I have been in both situations. I have had a 5'0" 75lbs woman come at me with a baseball bat. I was worried with that one, but I took it away from her so I didn't have to resort to what this pussy did.

My problem is not that he plastered her, it's that was his first choice. I mean shit man, she did an "Elaine from Seinfeld" push then smacked him on the shoulder and he decided to drop her? He wanted her down and out. Put her in her place. Macho bullshit.

I don't disagree that his response was more than needed, but I don't expect someone who's been taunted and hit repeatedly (and I saw the shove as WAY more than a friendly Elaine style push, and the second hit looked to be to his neck/chin, not shoulder) to think it through and be restrained, but I do agree a good pimp slap may have sufficed....a call to the cops should be the proper response, but it's clear that wouldn't work for him in a white girl vs black man incident in real life.

All that said, I still say that if you start a physical fight and you lose, badly, that's never your victim's fault, it's yours, and genitalia have nothing to do with it (unless someone gets kicked in the balls). I know <100 lb women that brag about getting high and going to bars intending to fight men, and winning those fights. Assuming gender or size makes someone not dangerous is naive.
Edit: note, his first reaction was to walk away from the taunts, and his first reaction to the first shove/hit was verbal, so decking her was technically his second choice, or third depending on how you look at it. ;-)

Moving this video to Buttle's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@newtboy I have tried to explain that I like living at home, not in prison, so yes, in a situation in which I did not genuinely fear grave bodily harm I would try to avoid a disproportionately violent response. That's what the law requires. It would not matter whether the irritant in question were male, female, or indeterminate.

No one is ever "legally justified in killing" someone else, unless perhaps they are an executioner. Deadly force in self defense is sometimes allowed in order to stop an attack, but must cease as soon as the threat is neutralized.

Racist taunts have been alleged, so have homophobic taunts on the other side. It's hard to say if anyone is telling the truth.

Ahhh, that's what you meant.
I submit that because you might not fear in one situation doesn't mean that, for someone less able or more cautious, fear isn't justified.
There are many legal justifications for homicide. Self defense is the most often used, but is far from the only justification. Enforcing a proper citizen's arrest for instance may use any force needed, including deadly force, to affect the arrest...but you better be ready to prove it was needed.

In this case, he used force to effectively stop a continuous attack and stopped the instant the attack was neutralized, and not even deadly force. I don't see why that's wrong, one hit for two, he just hits harder, a chance you take when hitting much larger strangers, no? Had she scratched his eye with her next attack, she may have ended his career.

Granted, with no audio, it's one person's word against another's as to what may have been said, but didn't she claim he attacked her unprovoked before the video surfaced? That's why I used the qualifier "allegedly", I can't tell for myself. It's pretty clear to me that she was instigating while he was walking away, though.

The test is what a reasonable person (eg a juror), in the same situation, which includes physical ability &c, would fear. I suspect that Mixon's lawyers told him it would be hard to find a judge or jury in Norman OK that believed his action was justified or necessary.

I don't know what Molitor first said. From the video it is clear that she did assault Mixon, and was in the wrong. That does not necessarily make Mixon right.

Any talk of citizen's arrest is generally dangerous lunacy, if you want to keep living at home.

'Reasonable person'....where do you find one of those in America? One person's reasonable is another person's ridiculous. Out of a dozen people, you only need one that thinks like I do that an instigator has no right to complain about the outcome of the fight they start, to avoid conviction. I think that's more than likely.

So, you are willing to risk your physical safety out of a fear of losing some freedom, others are willing to temporarily risk their freedom to secure their physical safety.
It's a great world where we each get to choose for ourselves, then deal with the consequences of our choices.

Again...I've been a non-convict for 46 years, so your repeated contentions that my thought process leads directly to prison has already been conclusively proven wrong.

What would Kwai Chang Caine do?