First of all, the kid wasn't shot because the music was too loud, he was shot because the shooter thought he saw a gun come out. Stop with the bull shit already.
Secondly, I cannot really say since I wasn't there and I don't know the evidence. My opinion, for what it is worth (and that ain't much) is that only an idiot would shoot his gun because he "thought" he saw one. Something is t right about that defense. Did he already have his gun out? If so, why? If not, he had enough time to draw his weapon so he had enough time to be sure it was a gun he saw.
Bad choice on the side of the defendant. At the very least he should get the lowest penalty for manslaughter. Again though, I'm only going by the VERY unreliable info I've heard on the case.
If there was no gun found, that defense is bullshit.
Agreed.
My point was that he should have had time to discern wether there was a gun or not, since he had time to draw his weapon. If his weapon was already out then he's the aggressor IMO. The defense doesn't make sense to me. Of course, this is based on my limited knowledge of the case.