Agreed. The assailant was down and no longer a threat. I would have also voted to convict.AndyC wrote:I support his right to have used deadly force in the initial shooting.
Once the kid was done and (as the blood-spatter seems to indicate) no longer a threat, his later actions turned it into an execution. I would have convicted him as well, despite understanding that terror and rage overwhelmed him - although I would probably have gone with 2nd degree murder (if they have such a thing there), not 1st degree, which to me means having planned it beforehand.
However, I would have gone with manslaughter as I could see the argument as it having been done in the heat of passion.