I keep coming back to my main question, which is why is the shooter being given so much benefit of the doubt? All this talk about being slapped, pushed, knocked to the ground, but NOTHING that I have seen to indicate that his "life was in danger." Where the hell is the equivalence of force in the response of pulling out a gun and starting to shoot everything in his immediate vicinity?
More excellent proof that we are NOT All Equal Under The Law. Of course, one only needs to look at our current government for reminders of that every single day.
Let's simply put aside the fact the shooter was an off-duty cop. Not so hard to do, right? His occupation should have no bearing since he was not working. Again, EQUAL Under The Law to Joe Schmo Average Citizen. Would this story fly then? If Joe Schmo gets knocked down at a Costco, is a fair response to pull out a weapon and start firing at someone who is unarmed? Would a Prosecutor buy the "fear for my life" excuse then? I doubt it. Perhaps the defense could argue that it was not premeditated, since the firing was unplanned, and the result of an altercation. There would certainly be much more sympathy for the victim, due to his disability, and the shooter would be viewed as a hothead who just got angered, and decided to pull out a gun and get "revenge" on his attacker.