Let's get our facts straight, shall we? The article actually says: "in a tape-recorded 911 call, one of the youths can be heard shouting racial slurs as he vows to avenge the victim." Which means, if one were to read it, that ONE of the youths shouted racial slurs AFTER the unarmed teen was killed. The boys came to the house asking specifically for the son to come outside and fight one of them. Sounds like a gauntlet-throw to come duke it out one-on-one over a previous encounter, and the angry mob of three friends were there to egg it on. Note that they were outside "inches away from the public street" so they weren't trying to break into the house, and they were unarmed, while the father and son were armed. It was a war of words until the father shot.
For some reason, that doesn't seem particularly bright. If you just saw someone shoot your buddy, would you stand there and shout racist slurs at them?
That would be prudent. What happened in this instance sounds totally different.
They called police after shooting the young man. And if he was so concerned for his safety, why was he "inches away from the public street" as the article also stated?
Sorry, I missed that. Did not read it intently enough and pick up the part about avenging the victim. He should have armed himself and called the cops immediately. That’s where he screwed up. I can tell you this, a bunch of jutes out in the front of my house threatening my son is something I would take seriously. I would not fluff it off like you are appearing to do. The homeowner screwed up by not calling the cops.