How could Mr White have known they were all unarmed. Perhaps they weren't; perhaps they were all armed with bazookas, it's irrelevant. None of them threatened him or his family with a weapon, and that's what the law cares about.
The testimony indicates that certain of these young men were on his property.
Being an unwanted person on another's property is called "trespassing" and in New York that's not the same thing as creating an imminent life threat to another person, last time I checked. Trespassers are dealt with by calling the police, who will be delighted to come out to a black man's house and remove drunken white punks from his property before a racial incident is created.
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?
Of course not. While the drunk punks are merely outside shouting at him he can call the police and have them carted away, and he can enjoy Christmas dinner with his family.
If they give him reason to believe that they are intent on arson, then at that point he is legitimately in fear of his life and would be applauded by all, including myself, to defend himself and his family with lethal force.
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?
No, that point is irrelevant to the issue.
Mr. White is paying a steep price for what you call "unarmed drunk kids"
Actually, it's not what I call them, it's what they, in fact, were.
making racially tinged threats
You seem fixated on the 'racial' aspect of the white kids' threats. Do you feel that because they were racial in nature that this serves to justify Mr. White's actions?
Your characrterization of them as kids is bogus nonsense.
No actually it's not. I have met numerous 20-somethings whom I would have no problem in referring to as "kids" because they are completely lacking in adult maturity, as is the case with this bunch. It takes far more than the number of years you've been alive to graduate into true adulthood. If you act like a kid, you should expect to be referred to as one.
the number of 50 year olds who could stand up to these "kids" unarmed in a fight are few and far between.
The law is not written based upon who can stand up to whom in a bare-knuckle fight.
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.
Of course it is.
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.
Of course it's nonsense.. Mr. White was apparently dumb enough to think that he could "reason" with a bunch of drunk punk kids, and that it was somehow okay for him to wave a gun inches from the face of one of the louder ones....so close that he tried to slap it away.
Mr. White should have moved to Texas.
Agreed, but since he chose to live in Long Island, he needs to accept the fact that the laws in Long Island are quite different than those in Texas, a concept that many posters to this thread appear to be unaware of.