A little background on Bob McCulloch from his Wiki page:

[MrScorpio]

In 2000, in the so-called "Jack in the Box" case, two undercover officers, a police officer and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officer, shot and killed two unarmed black men in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant in Berkeley, Missouri. In 2001, the officers told a grand jury convened by McCulloch that the suspects tried to escape arrest and then drove toward them; the jury declined to indict.[3][5] McCulloch told the public that every witness had testified to confirm this version, but St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist Michael Sorkin reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes, released to him by McCulloch, and found that McCulloch's statement was untrue: only three of 13 officers testified that the car was moving forward.[4] A subsequent federal investigation found that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots; nevertheless, federal investigators decided that the shooting was justified because the officers feared for their safety.[3][5] McCulloch also drew controversy when he said of the victims: "These guys were bums."[3] The two men killed, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley, had prior felony convictions on drug and assault charges.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor)

Sounds familiar?

[Gothmog]

1. This DA is biased

The grand jury process was rigged

[jwirr]

2. One of the most dangerous laws in this country is the "I feared for my life" law. For heavens sake

that allows even the most cowardly of people to justify killing anyone they want to kill. We have always had self defense laws but back then (at least in the 50s) it required the shooter to prove that his/her life was being threatened. Now all they have to say is "I'm scared."

This law is especially dangerous in the hands of bigoted police.

And the cover- up king has to go.

[unblock]

3. i don't think extra cowardice helps; i think a "reasonable man" would have to have that fear.

otherwise a someone with severe paranoia would have free license to kill just about anyone.

[jwirr]

4. And where does it give that exception in the law? I think that is a real possibility under this law.

[unblock]

5. link:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable man” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable man” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense

Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.

For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html#sthash.I05A6c9M.dpuf

[jwirr]

6. That was present in the old law as well. I think the difference today is that no one has to prove

that there was indeed a threat. No one has asked Wilson to prove it. No one asked Zimmerman to prove it. None of the cops in NYC were asked to prove that the man they used the chokehold on was doing anything to threaten them before they started manhandling him. There is a difference. No one is holding any of these shooters accountable for their stand your ground fear stuff. All you have to do to get by with it is parrot some words. It is not enough.

[unblock]

7. i'm pretty sure the "reasonable man" concept still applies, legally.

i'll grant you that in practice, at least in a few sensationalistic cases, things don't always play out by the letter of the law.

[noiretextatique]

8. oh, c'mon...we're talking about "hulking black demons"

and "thugs" armed with sidewalks!!!! any reasonable person, especially those with law enforcement training and guns would be fearful and of course