In my opinion, after examining the facts available (not just reading headlines), the use of deadly force was not justified. In the Trayvon Martin and Martin Brown cases, the use of deadly force was justified.
In this case, the father-son vigilante team chased the victim down in a pickup with the father in the bed of the truck brandishing a weapon, cuts the victim off, then the son jumps out of the truck and and levels a shotgun at the victim, then claims self defense when the victim attempted to defend himself.
The father-son team were the aggressors the entire time, and used excessive force while attempting to execute a citizen’s arrest for the crime of trespass.
In the Trayvon Martin case, Trayvon jumped George Zimmerman, and was pounding Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk. Zimmerman did not stalk down Martin with gun drawn.
In the Michael Brown case, Brown was repeatedly punching an officer in the face through the officer’s cruiser window.
This is the problem when laymen try and give a legal opinion.
You don’t understand the particulars of the law.
In every state I’m aware of, a claim of self defense can NOT be made if a person is in the process of an illegal act.
If he was burglarizing a home, he can’t defend himself from being detained.
There’s that word again. “brandishing”... please show evidence where he was doing that.
George Zimmerman pursued martin.
Also you say the son “leveled” the shotgun at AA. Please show proof. Otherwise you just literally made up your own facts.
And what do you define as excessive force? Dont say shooting him because that wasn’t done until after he attacked.
Seems you have trouble with basic vocabulary and definitions.