If a punk lunged at him and he fired in self defense, why the hell would he then claim he didn’t intend to fire the firearm? Either he did it intentionally as an act of self defense, or it was an accident and he is negligent. THere’s no in between.
You came pretty close to describing such an in between in your previous post.
have to know more of the details. But since he killed the kid accidentally, the details are a moot point and I don’t care what they are. If I was mr white, I would never have said I fired accidentally. I would’ve said the kid made a grab for my firearm and I shot him. Then there would be something to argue about. Also, I never would aim for someone’s face. In a panic situation, a person shoots to knock the person back or down. Shooting in the face makes people think of a deliberate execution.,
Or the kid made a grab for the firearm, and in jerking it away, or trying to retain it, he accidentally pulled the trigger.
We don't know that he aimed for the face/head deliberately, but if the gun discharged as is was being jerked away, a center of mass aimpoint could easily turn into a shot in the face.
Oh, BTW, you aren't going to knock anyone back or down with a .32. You have to hope for hitting something vital, as you do with all handgun rounds, but a .32 is especially weak. The only centerfire round that is more puny is the .25 auto, which is generally considered less effective than .22 long rifle which is a rimfire round. (Long Rifle is a name only, I have a pistol that fires it, and my father-in-law had several. I actually have two now, I got one of his when he passed away, but it's still in his safe, so I tend to forget about it).
I'd have the shotgun over most handguns, but especially over the pipsqueak .32. More in