According to the law, it's a clear-cut case of self-defense. His counsel will take this to higher courts if Newton continues to press this issue.
The law only allows the use of deadly force if an innocent person is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury, and, if outside the home, the defendant must retreat if it is safe to do so. The key questions in this incident, as in all such self-defense cases are as follows:
1) Was the shooter innocent or did his actions help precipitate the encounter?
2) Was the shooter in danger of death or grave bodily injury?
3) Did the shooter have a viable route to retreat?
I think you are mistaken if you think this was a clear cut case of self defense. It does not appear to me to be clear cut at all:
1) This incident was preceded by an argument, so the state may argue that the defendant helped precipitate the conflict.
2) It is hard to argue that one unarmed man attacking three men rises to the level of danger of death or grave bodily injury.
3) It appears that neither the shooter nor any of the other two made any attempt to retreat.
Again, I have no sympathy for ponytail boy. But I predict that the shooter will be tried and convicted and that conviction will stand up in court.
You know the saying stay away from stupid people, stupid places, and stupid things? A protest like this qualifies as at least two of those. I suggest that you stay away from such protests, no matter where your views lie.