holly9000 - Just out of curiosity how far apart do you think our positions are here? I don't think that guy deserved to get killed for what he did. It was stupid, and violent and uncalled for. But did he deserve to die for it? Of course not.
Did the shooter have the right to kill him? Absolutely. Those are 2 different questions though. The law agrees with me on the shooter's rights.
Is the law morally correct? Therein lies the real question; I think it is.
When the pusher started the encounter with a violent act there was no way for anyone else to understand how threatened the shooter felt when he hit the ground. Unless you're under attack it's pretty hard to imagine how you'd react. It's a lot easier to watch a video and armchair quarterback the situation. If you have a propensity towards violence, it might seem like the shooter went overboard. If you're a meeker person with a less than confrontational disposition you might feel otherwise. The fact is there was no way to know what would happen next just as there was no way to go back and un-start the encounter. IMO the benefit of the doubt has to go to the person who got attacked.
I believe that there's no place in a civilized society for problem solving through violent methods. That's a big reason that our society is so fucked up to begin with. A "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude is outdated and needs to be replaced by honest, sober dialog. That's the only way we can change the world for the better.
The bottom line is if the pusher had come out and assessed, and de-escalated the situation instead of acting out violently he probably would be alive today.
I feel sorry for his family but I understand the essential need to have laws protecting society from that sort of behavior in general.
Your (and a fistful of others) basically keep repeating this point:
1) the law enabled him to elect to end this man. So he's in the clear there.
2) practical/moral view: The murdered man should have known better than to push a total stranger.
So some of you say, it was the victim's responsability to not push a man, in order not to open the possibility of being murdered.
BUT: The murder was there in the parkinglot, had his weapon on him and HE chose to engange strangers on his own. If he would follow the rules you want to push on the victim, he would NOT have engaged anybody in that parking lot. He would have ignored it, or, if justice is important to him, he could have called the cop. There was NO NEED to engange them, just as you say there was no need for the murdered person to engange the old man. Old man had other things on his mind though.
Again: It was NOT his first time, store owner said he was a trouble maker, had the police called on him previously and had threatened to shoot someone at least once before. So NO, he was not there to deescalate anything. In contrary.