The facts in this case lead me be believe that the jury either consisted of one or more activists who didn't care about the facts, or a few people don't even know how to process basic logic.
Yes, Ethan and his friends were doing something was, and is, stupid and generally unlawful. The gun that they were using wasn't just like the water guns that we shot at our sisters by the pool every summer. It also wasn't as dangerous as a BB gun. Still, bad idea to just go around pelting people for fun.
Young men do a lot of stupid shit.
The defense argued that the three young men who attacked, and ultimately killed Ethan, were engaging in lawful self-defense under Cleveland's stand your ground laws.
Clearly, this water pellet gun that spurred the retaliation wasn't a deadly weapon. The fists and feet that killed Ethan were clearly deadlier than the gun.
The only argument for lawful self-defense would have been if the three young men who attacked him thought that they were being shot at by a real firearm.
By the attackers' own testimony at trial, that makes no sense.
By the attackers' own testimony, they were running away until they realized that they were being hit with water pellets.
Then they decided to turn around and attack. So, by their own testimony, they could not say that they reacted out of fear for their own lives.
What does Stand Your Ground have to do with this? There's nothing in Stand Your Ground that says that you can retreat to safety, and then go bad and attack your attacker.
Revenge isn't self-defense.
It was testified in court, by one of the defendants, that he "heard" the knockout blow. They all admitted to continuing the beating after Ethan was unconscious.
Even if Ethan were brandishing a real firearm, this admission places the defense on slippery ground. Anybody who has taken credible self-defense instruction knows that you stop when the threat is no longer a threat. Once you know that the threat is unconscious, you are legally obligated to stop -- you're morally and ethically obligated to stop. These defendants said in open court that they knew that Ethan was unconscious and continued stomping on him.
The jurors did convict all of the young men involved in the beating with assault.
Okay... the logic is weird here.
Explain this to me.
If you found them all guilty of assault, then you're saying that they weren't engaging in self-defense. You're saying that they unlawfully assaulted Ethan.
That unlawful assault was responsible for Ethan's death.
This isn't like the George Floyd thing where there's a reasonable question about whether or not Chauvin's knee on the back of his shoulders was a greater cause of death than the amount of drugs in Floyd's system.
Ethan's death was entirely due to the beating.
So, three young men engaged in the unlawful assault and battery of Ethan.
Ethan died as a direct result of that unlawful assault and battery.
Still, the jury was hung on whether or not the assailants are guilty of even involuntary manslaughter?
This makes no fucking sense.