[ATOMIC_PUNK]

"If they collect evidence down the road that says something different, we can always revisit the decision,"s aid Riddle. "But as it stands today, the only evidence that's there indicates that it's self-defense. I have zero evidence to disprove self-defense, which is what I have to do according to the law."

Zero Evidence ?

So riding away on a bicycle is a call for self defense ? there is something clearly wrong with parts of this law mark was not armed and in order to be riding away he would justifiably have his back turned ......away is away !

As i said before i have not one problem with the law itself BUT parts of the law should be changed because when innocent people get killed with their back turned and no weapon the law is most certainly written badly .....Just suppose it was a neighbors child say a 17 year old sleep walking {it happens believe me} what would happen to the shooter nothing? or would the neighborhood be screaming for justice ? i think the latter

[philman_36]

Sorry for the loss of your friend/relative, but being 'out and about' and messing with somebody's vehicle at 3:00 AM in the morning kind of indicates to me he was up to no good to begin with.
If you have a link to the police report I'll read it.

As it stands now you're not exactly the best source for unbiased information as you're too close to the issue, IMO.

BTW, as to this...and no weapon...
You can effectively kill somebody with a 4 D cell Mag Lite (or similar). Blunt force trauma.
You can kill somebody with a screwdriver. Plunged into heart or brain.
You can kill somebody with your bare hands! Strangulation or a strike to certain areas of the body.
So what do you mean by "no weapon"? Unless you're a vegetable on life support everybody has weapons at their disposal.