Well. fwiw, using Chicago as a gauge is just a typical way of deflecting the fact that Chicago is nowhere near America's murder capital. It's a slick soundbite that no one who really looks at the figures would even assert, unless he or she were being dishonest. Just check, but, for example:
But despite the soundbites, Chicago remains in the middle of the pack when homicide is measured on a per-capita basis. In 2016, the city had a rate of 27.9 killings per 100,000 residents — half that of St. Louis, whose 188 murders amounted to 59.3 homicides per 100,000 people and preserved that city’s status as America’s murder capital. Baltimore placed second, with a homicide rate of 51.2, followed by Detroit, New Orleans, and Cleveland. “Because Chicago has so many people, it can get a murder every day, and that gets people’s attention,” John Pfaff, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, told The Trace recently. “When you focus on numbers, not rates, Chicago ends up looking worse because you forget just how big a city it is.”
All that is not interesting, though, since the context of using Chicago in this case was moire about who was being shot than about murders.
Anyway, here's the thing. There's all this talk of "the law" and how race shouldn't matter. But, all it takes is either putting oneself in the place of the shooter or victim, or putting oneself in the juror's seat. Iow, everyone on this jury will see the video. They'll be read the law, that Marvin illustrated, but Florida penal law is public and can be googled. So, it will come down to what the jury sees in the video, and it's easy to ask anyone who has seen it whether or not he feels that the shooting was justified.
I tend to have some faith in current juries, since I've served on a few. I know that the whole reason the man was indicted was because a case was presented to a grand jury, and the majority had to believe that the state had a case. The trial raises the standard of judgment to beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that many people already argue that the shooter was justified, it's also reasonable to believe that he'll be acquitted.
Brief anecdote from when I served on a grand jury. On my left was an Irish-American lady who came from a family of leos, and whose husband was a LEO. She told me that everyone she knew said that cops could not get a square deal in the South Bronx. On the far end of the table was a young Hispanic woman, and she would say that she wouldn't believe a word that any cop said. It was a mixed bag of jurors, but they were they extremes.
Now, the ADA was always required to read us a paragraph saying that we promised to be unbiased. Of course, to the lady on my left, that meant "the cops never lie." To the woman on the right, that meant it was definitely, already biased. After all, the accused generally had no say in the matter because he didn't testify. That is, unless he did. Because, rarely, someone accused would waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify. I have a few funny stories, but the main point is that, when the defendant testified (and we could ask him questions), the lady on the right and the left usually came to the same conclusion.
I found that doubly true when there was a videotape of the event. The majority of people, and sometimes all of them, would come to the same conclusion when they were all shown the same thing. But, I recall one case which was about a man who was raping his two step daughters. The daughters (15 and 13) both testified. However, there was no videotape. So, should we have indicted or not? The point was made that we weren't determining guilt, we ("the people of the State of NY) were saying that those girls deserved their day in court.
Sorry for the rant. My point is only that people can either believe their eyes or not. If they think the shooter in the video had no choice and that it wasn't a crime. Fine. Sure, he will say that he was in fear for his life. All I can say is that if it were me, I couldn't justify firing. I don't believe in drawing a weapon with the intention of using it, but I hear a lot of people talk about a gun being a deterrent. Imho, a man backing away from someone holding a gun is being effectively deterred.