The dead man had a criminal history of shoplifting, trespassing and obstructing police, if he had a gun it's likely he would be in the commission of three more felonies.
Harris admitted to punching the dead man but said the man swung at him first, so it may be that the dead man had no right to "Stand His Ground" and use the gun he was proscribed from possessing.
It also may be that the dead man was unfortunate enough to lose the fight that he started.
It may again also be that the recent criminal acts of the dead man against Mr. Harris' Daughter and Mr. Harris himself, so angered Mr. Harris that he could not discern when the dead man was no longer a threat.
Finally, how would I know what "Everyone on this thread" would agree to?
You can’t... But what you shared just goes to show that we as humans are no longer private property but public community property. We are no longer allowed to protect the life and limb of our own selves or our offspring in a very natural and justified manor as it should be.
Current society has now insisted that the right thing to do is just become a collective victim of that very same society good or bad...
Seriously... Thank you... More of these unjust cases need to be exposed. The father administered proper swift justice as it should be and this should not even be questioned. Because it is questioned it gives leave for more criminals to do the same, starting exactly 1 minute from now.
You did good here and please do not let those who don’t see it the same bother you...
Re: “Finally, how would I know what “Everyone on this thread” would agree to?”
I assumed you would answer for yourself - which you did.
You have burnished your argument with several facts that were not in the linked article.
Was there just one restroom? Was there just one stall? Did the dead man observe the woman go into the restroom first, or did he not know she was in there?
You listed the criminal offenses of the dead man. What is the criminal record of the father? Why didn’t the father call the Police when the store employees did not?
Why should I believe the dead man punched first? Did the father threaten the dead man?
The imaginary “gun” I invented for my Comment is really superfluous to my basic argument. Any “weapon,” including fists, will do.
My Bottom Line - I did not read anything in the posted article that makes me think the dead man did not have a legal right to defend himself with lethal force against the violent father.