He boiled it down to this - can you convince a jury there was a necessity at that point, when the guy is 10 feet away , to be shot in order to protect yourself or someone else from bodily harm?
He says its going to be tough because the video shows the situation was more or less de-escalated at that point.
But he conceded that all it takes is proof that he was advancing as opposed to standing still to change his mind, and likely win over a Texas jury (outside of Austin)
He also talked quite a bit about Texas law and while the porch is part of the domicile in Texas, its going to be hard to prove he was threatened in his home. I'm not sure I agree with his logic but he was saying that in self defense there is a difference in pushing someone off a porch versus, say being dragged out by your feet , but the other lawyers weren't convinced that Texas law really made that distinction.
I don't know, the other people who were interviewing him weren't convinced that the timing of it truly established the situation was de-escalated to the point that imminent harm wasn't a reasonable concern.
Branca wasn't swayed by it though and says this doesn't meet the criteria to establish self defense. I listened to them go back and forth for about 20 minutes on the topic. Branca is arguably the nations expert on self defense laws.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
