But from a legal standpoint, if you can leave and disengage, but stay and keep engaging, there goes your self defense argument.
Yes, and in fact he did leave and then came back, which is even more damning to his case. As it proved he did have that option, but was really desirous of continuing the confrontation.
but the point is that he did not keep engaging- according to testimony- it was the other man that re-engaged, and it was his wife that tried to stop him (the texter) from doing so apparently- if this is the case- then the texter then becomes the aggressor- judging by what happened- the cop may have tried to do the right thing by trying to get management involved- and leave it in their hands from there on out
This is why the case isn’t as clear cut as ‘man shot for texting’ He actually wasn’t shot for texting (Nor for just throwing popcorn)- he may very well have been shot for what he did afterwards-
The question now is- IF that is how it went down- then was there enough perceived threat there for the cop to do what he did? likey not- but that is what the trial will be about- not the popcorn or texting really-