That's fine, but if you are in Long Island, New York, and the 'threat' is manifested as a bunch of unarmed, drunk kids shouting at you while you are securely inside your home, and you make the decision to go outside and escalate the situation for 20 minutes without calling the police, then you'll be sharing a cell with Mr. White.
How could Mr White have known they were all unarmed. The testimony indicates that certain of these young men were on his property. He had already heard the threats issued against his son. Does Mr White have a right to protect his property from a mob of young men hurling racial invectives or must he sit in the house until somebody gets the drunken bright idea to set it on fire?
The prosecutor actually made a point that Mr White had not "hunted in years". Do you agree with the prosecutor that this somehow points to Mr White's guilt?
Mr. White is paying a steep price for what you call "unarmed drunk kids" making racially tinged threats while on and near his property. Your characrterization of them as kids is bogus nonsense. 17 and 18 year olds are young men and the number of 50 year olds who could stand up to these "kids" unarmed in a fight are few and far between.
I don't know if Mr White killed this young man in cold blood or by accident but I do know that the prosecutor's argument that you must hunt to have guns is bogus leftist bullcrap that he sold to the jurors. Additionally, his implication that Mr. White venturing outside his house to protect his property and family is evidence of his intent to kill is utter nonsense.
Mr. White should have moved to Texas.