Curious as to what you saw. I've only seen snippets of the prosecutors closing statements, but everything I saw was showing him having to admit that KR was being chased and threatened. Not to mention from what I've read and seen it appears the prosecutor threw a whole bunch of outright lies out in his opening that were all proven to actually be lies.
Then the judge making the prosecutor admit the weapon KR was carrying was in fact, NOT illegal, in open court.
What have you seen that makes you think a reasonable person couldn't/wouldn't determine that KR was in fear for his life and acted accordingly, because as I understand it, that is the threshold in this case.
KC
My answer will surprise you.
The prosecutor made so many mistakes during the trial (many called out by the judge) that it is to laugh. But that didn't stop him. Yesterday, he showed that he knew nothing about how to handle guns, and pointed it at the jury ...
Giving them the feeling (loaded or not) of the fear of being in the crosshairs of a firearm.
Point in favor of the defense. He also made more mistakes/lies than that, but I will not bother to list them.
In fact, I think the defense put forth a very convincing job of showing KR's act of self-defense.
"What have you seen that makes you think a reasonable person couldn't/wouldn't determine that KR was in fear for his life and acted accordingly, because as I understand it, that is the threshold in this case."
That is my problem ...
I do not have faith that *all* members of any jury chosen, are
reasonable individuals, and it only takes one to disagree.