Good grief, are you guys this... ah...
special on purpose? No-one besides the defense have said this was justified, least of all the grand jury recommending charges of
assault, aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter.
Without all the information (I know, I know, folk like
@Paradoxical etc. have their feelings to make up for that, they can tell just by looking that the black people are murderous thugs)... But without all the information, we might speculate that the defense will argue that being shot at and their lives in jeopardy, so they believed, the defendants' fight-or-flight instincts kicked in and resulted in excessive force against a threat who, for all they knew, may have had or appeared to be reaching for another gun. Ohio is a "stand your ground" state, after all, and for all we know this could have all happened in a matter of seconds.
Since Paradoxical seems unable or unwilling to answer, maybe you can help answer my question: Particularly in light of the radically different conservative responses to this versus Kyle Rittenhouse, would you be happier and consider it legal self-defense if they'd had guns and simply riddled with bullets the whole group who shot at them? No grisly head-stomping, just another mass shooting, yawn.