The whole case is very tricky.
2 weeks ago DA Paul Howard called stun guns deadly weapons when he charged Atlanta cops with Aggravated Assault for using a deadly/offensive weapon on 2 college students.
Now we have Brooks who clearly fought with cops, took an officer's stun gun, and while running, fired back at the officer, who then discharged his weapon numerous times. The legal standard for self-defense cases is the "reasonable person" standard. Basically, would a reasonable person have been in fear for his life or of receiving great bodily injury at moment the officer pulled the trigger.
Going back to RVA's original question; a person cannot initiate a confrontation and then claim self defense. So I can't start punching you, you pull a knife, and then I shoot you and clam self-defense from the knife, because I started the confrontation.
Similarly, even if I was justified in acting in self-defense initially, if that ended and I then pursued you and killed you that also would not be self-defense. Imagine I show up at your house with a gun and threaten your life, but then I leave. you can't get in the car and pursue me and kill me and claim self-defense because the threat ended.
I hope I have answered some of the questions. If not, throw more my way and I'll do me best to answer without interjecting too much personal thought.
Except this. Fulton county has the most educated jury pools in the state. Emotion will mean nothing.
