I’m also at odds with some here.
So, I guess I’m satisfied that there’s precedent for me to murder an unarmed person who throws their phone at me if I can make a convincing argument that ‘he was gonna attack me with his hands’.
Oh, wait: I’m not retired LEO with all the right connections. /s
He never would have provoked Oulson if he wasn’t armed, which is EXACTLY the case a prosecutor in my state would make against any armed citizen who killed an unarmed person, and a fundamental ‘morality’ which guides all of my decisions.
Obviously Reeves lives by a different standard.
For the record, Reeves was convicted, he appealed, the ‘stand your ground law’ shifted the burden of proof to the prosecution, he got a biased jury IN THE SAME JURISDICTION and the rest is history.
Anyone who believes this was justifiable homicide is a dumbass.
Reeves is an embarrassment to the profession and one who will be judged for his actions.
Actually, I’m old. If a young man comes at me with only his hands, and I’m armed, he’s gonna get shot.
Period.
Pretty silly reason for a young guy to lose his life, but he had to show the 80 year old who was boss! Just no other options.
Once you engage, you can never really know the possible variables that may present.
Trayvon was confident that he could take Zimmerman too.