I have sat in the jury room on three trials. The rationale that juries can come up with after listening to testimony from the witness stand, is at times amazing. I don’t care how good of a case I could make in defense and how much the evidence was on my side, I would never want my fate in front of a jury.  

You give yourself a moral pass. Now that is some kind of flexibility. There is a word to describe it. Can you guess what it is?  

The law on self defense in Texas says that the use of deadly force is justified if the person using the force reasonably believes that it is the force is necessary. Of course a jury will look at it and determine if the person had a “reasonable” fear. In my opinion, by law it is to be viewed from the perspective of the person using the force at that moment. That is why it says that “he” reasonably believes. Then under Texas law, a person isn’t required to prove self defense. The state is required to prove that it wasn’t and beyond a reasonable doubt. So there was no reasonable doubt of fear when your car is surrounded by a mob and a guy is walking toward you with an AK47?

Not actually how our justice system works.....you already convicted him and he has not even started his defense.....lmao

I think that his comments is what he was convicted on. Had they not had that, he probably wouldn’t have been convicted.  That is one reason that I do not talk about what I would do. If you make an off the cuff comment like, “If that happened to me, they wouldn’t need an ambulance, they would need a hearse”…. then later you are in a maybe different situation but resort to deadly force, don’t be so sure they someone won’t find that comment and use it against you. “He has obviously been waiting for the opportunity to kill someone” or worse…. the opportunity to kill one of those people. (whoever “those” may be)