[DiogenesLamp]

The shooters had no way to know that the victim had stolen anything from them or anyone else.

No. I reject that. They have a series of videos going all the way back to October of this same guy creeping into that house at night. They have $2,400.00 dollars in stolen fishing equipment, a stolen gun and a stolen purse, all from the neighborhood in this same period. They have this guy going between houses in the neighborhood during the daylight too. This man is a known criminal, and was indeed known to the Senior McMichael from his previous job as a police officer.

All of these things together make a reasonable man conclude this man is not only a thief, but is in fact *THE* thief. It is ridiculous to assert a second burglar, without any evidence to support this claim.

Second, the video clearly shows the rifle aimed at the victim when he rushed his assailant.

Aimed at the ground. If it were aimed at the *VIOLENT THIEF* he would have killed him with the first blast.

The position the man is holding the *SHOTGUN* is called the "Low Ready" position.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/4/27/the-low-ready-position/

Also, the man holding the gun was not the *ASSAILANT* He was the victim of an attack from the *ASSAILANT* which was the *VIOLENT THIEF*.

You've got so many English words mixed up in their meaning that I can see why you have gotten so much wrong.

The attacker is the *ASSAILANT* The attacker was the thief.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

All of these things together make a reasonable man conclude this man is not only a thief, but is in fact *THE* thief. It is ridiculous to assert a second burglar, without any evidence to support this claim.

You're talking about evidence as if the two shooters were a jury. They weren't. They were two men with guns who tried to detain a citizen going about his business - whether that business was legal or not was not something they had any way of knowing, whatever detective skills they might have been blessed with.

Aimed at the ground. If it were aimed at the *VIOLENT THIEF* he would have killed him with the first blast.

No, the first look we get of these two shows the shooter standing on the ground with his rifle raised. The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot, and I would assume that's what the victim was hoping to achieve to preserve his life when accosted by two armed men.

You've got so many English words mixed up in their meaning that I can see why you have gotten so much wrong.

The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting. Dragging out the victim's history, claims of seeing things that simply aren't there on the video - it takes a lot to defend the indefensible.