I'm trying to look past the poster's obvious stupidity in both language and deed and see all circumstances.
1) Plaintiff was doing illegal drugs in the defendant's home.
2) Plaintiff followed defendant out of house (presumably high on illegal drugs) with intentions unclear.
3) Defendat can argue that he felt threatened and acted preemtively in self-defense.
4) Defendant feared for his safety, and hit the guy once (if I read that correctly, which I'm not entirely sure I did). Defendant fled and plaintiff did not pursue.
But, of course, this all depends on what, if anything, was said to any officials. If he told the story as he did here, he's screwed. But I can see him spinning this and getting off on a much lesser charge. Lawyer friend of mine said that this is the likely outcome.