how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure) and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?
you completly missed the point of my question. so I'll ask it diffrently.
what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?
You, and the rest of us here, as well as the DA, are looking at this situation with the benefit of hindsight. I believe they used to call it Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Now I'm not saying the pharmacist was right, but based upon the state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly interview, I can't say that he was wrong, either. I simply can't say one way or the other......I wasn't there. And therein lies the pertinent question: What would a "reasonable man" perceive as a threat
in that situation? Not after reviewing the tape countless times, but
at that moment in time.
I suspect that one's perspective might be a tad bit different without the benefit of hindsight.
And like I said before, he only has to convince ONE juror that he was acting as a "reasonable man" would act "under the same circumstances".