The United States Supreme Court said that when judging the "reasonableness" of a person's actions, hindsight CANNOT be used and that the facts and circumstances as seen by THE PERSON, AT THAT TIME, are what must be considered.
If you have some inside knowledge as to what the gentleman believed, saw, THOUGHT he saw, etc, AT THAT TIME, then by all means, enlighten me.
I'm not being argumentative, but the article doesn't state facts and circumstances as seen by THAT man at THAT time. It says that some kids were shot while trying to TP a man's house. It also says that LE stated "his intent was to come out shooting." That's hearsay unless it's a FACT proven in the investigation.
I am not defending the man's actions. Why? Because I don't KNOW what he did, saw, or believed. I wasn't there and I haven't interviewed him. He hasn't testified to anything and nobody has made a determination on anything.
Premature, knee-jerk reactions are what I take issue with.
If you have some inside knowledge as to what the gentleman believed, saw, THOUGHT he saw, etc, AT THAT TIME, then by all means, enlighten me.
I'm not being argumentative, but the article doesn't state facts and circumstances as seen by THAT man at THAT time. It says that some kids were shot while trying to TP a man's house. It also says that LE stated "his intent was to come out shooting." That's hearsay unless it's a FACT proven in the investigation.
I am not defending the man's actions. Why? Because I don't KNOW what he did, saw, or believed. I wasn't there and I haven't interviewed him. He hasn't testified to anything and nobody has made a determination on anything.
Premature, knee-jerk reactions are what I take issue with.