Both of these are not analogies that fit to this. This a judge convicting you of assault even though they know it was self-defense according to several witnesses with the judge's response being simply, "You didn't give us evidence on precisely how and who all attacked you so we will ignore the fact altogether."
No, we don't know it was "self-defense." We would only know that if there was evidence of that. But there isn't. There is abundant evidence that lots of people think it was self-defense: there is not abundant evidence that it was self-defense. There's a huge difference.
Furthermore, the social contract does not afford players anything like a right to self defense. You bring your problems to the magistrates, or resolve them quietly and peaceably.
