That doesn’t mean the jury was wrong. And it definitely doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have been convicted in Texas despite a similar law. The jury likely had more information, specifically ME testimony about the likelihood of the robber being conscious in addition to the behavior of the pharmacist when he reentered the pharmacy to arrive at their verdict. There is also the issue of the defense arguing pure self defense which is a hard defense to argue in this case. He may have been on a pogo stick, but I think we can agree a pogo sticking robber isn’t a threat to your life. When he reentered, it seems very possible that he could have prevented any threat to himself and others with less than deadly force whatever condition you think the robber was in. By turning his back on him, it looks like he wasn’t training a gun or close to doing so on the pharmacist who could have held one of his guns on him until police arrived.
Based on both of your posts clearly O.J. was innocent.
The jury said he was so he was.
The evidence that I saw made him look guilty but the jury said he was innocent so I guess I interpreted what I saw incorrectly.
I sure hope they catch the real killer someday.