Agreed.
Just a wrinkle in the facts as so far covered in this thread.
Yeah; the thread discussion has been a good one. I mainly fault the news article for being poorly written AND not being very thorough in its presentation of the facts of the case.
As has been pointed out in this thread and by CT’s “duty to retreat”, the victim is not allowed to present any after-the-fact aggression whatsoever. We may *assume* the initial attack was over and the victim is at fault due to him pursuing his attackers outside, but that version of the story was not presented in the article. We can only surmise that, based on the judge finding him guilty.