They're not that unusual circumstances where I'm from. I'm just waiting for the inevitable reveal that we're slowly working towards a multi-dimensional apocalypse.
The argument has less to do with any tacit agreement with anyone's actions before or after the fight, and more to do with the unconstitutionality--so to speak--of ex post facto legislation. It is unfair to expect people to uphold a standard of which they were unaware at the time.
Unfortunately I'm not sure we have the training to set up a judicial system, do we want some sort of independent prosecutor, or is it to be the wronged party or their representative arguing against the accused or theirs. The former obviously requires more effort, but may reveal a more thorough case. To what point does right to privacy trump right to discovery?
Even if we start with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the second is already on shaky grounds. Rights should be something like right to safety, right to property, and autonomy. And I think consideration should be given for the restrictions imposed on us by the experiments.
Hitting someone out of anger is different than the scientists pitting us against one another. Stealing someone's jacket may be justified if it is to prevent one's block from physical punishment.
I don't want to decide, but I think they're points that merit discussion at least.