If Situational Action Theory seems material to you, a similar construct by Lonnie Athens, Violent Encounters : Violent Engagements, Skirmishes, and Tiffs may also help to float your boat.

From the author’s study of violent and nonviolent offenders and nonoffenders’ accounts, he drewtwo main conclusions about the interaction that takes place between the perpetrator and victim when violent crimes are committed. First, these crimes are committed during violent encounters that encompass five stages: (1) role claiming, (2) role rejection, (3) role sparring, (4) role enforcement, and (5) role determination. Second, based on how many of these stages are completed, violent encounters can be divided into three subtypes: (1) engagements, (2) skirmishes, and (3) tiffs. Violent dominance encounters that go through all five stages constitute engagements, those that enter only four of the stages constitute skirmishes, and those that enter only three of the stages constitute tiffs. Thus, for any theory to provide a complete explanation of violent crimes, it must be able to account for not only violent engagements but also violent skirmishes and tiffs.
More refs to Athens' reserach in this post; see especially, his conclusion re: group violence which is quoted in full in that post.

Athens has a number of examples where the initial "victim" - via provocation of one sort or another - becomes the aggressor who avenges the initial insult and then some. E.g., the case at p.26 (pdf) of Violent Encounters.

Regards

Mike