Weird, I watch a lot of true crime shit (I'm not saying I'm an expert, I'm saying this is common middle american common knowledge) and the thing that every case seems to rely on in murder trials with "self defense," is if there was an actual threat, then yes, it's self defense, but if the "threat" is neutralized or not an actual present danger, as in, "I was in a room with someone who sexually assaulted me and I could have easily left but I wanted revenge," isn't justifiable murder. So was this revenge, or was this an actual clear and present danger to the murderer?

Here's a good example - a guy starts yelling at someone for being parked in the handicap spot without a proper plate, husband comes out of the store it's parked in front of, the guy gets knocked to the ground by him. When he's on the ground, the guy pulls his sidearm, the guy turns and starts to position his feet and weight away from the guy and back towards the store - the guy shot anyway - Life sentence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv0iN5J-9mk) The threat was neutralized, he went from being a danger to being neutralized the second he shifted his feet and weight.

​

With that in mind, put aside your hate or bias against trans people, even put aside the sexual assault, be objective like a jury is supposed to be and focus in on the killing itself, was this revenge or was this self defense? I don't know enough about the case, I'm legitimately asking, like was the person actually coming after him with something?