Okay so what point are you making? The coroner didn’t determine lawfulness, the court did. He just offered his opinion, as coroners do, about the actions that killed the woman.
My point is that the coroner’s opinion isn’t an official determination of whether the death was lawful.
The opinion here was basically that the wounds didn’t match the defendant’s story. That’s not determining the lawfulness of the death, although it’s likely good evidence towards that determination.
I think the fact that she is dead prove the unlawfullness of her death. Unless you can tell me a story where an unarmed person could be lawfully shot in the chest. The unlawfulness description isn’t why most people are upset about this story.
Okay so what point are you making? The coroner didn’t determine lawfulness, the court did. He just offered his opinion, as coroners do, about the actions that killed the woman.
My point is that the coroner’s opinion isn’t an official determination of whether the death was lawful.
The opinion here was basically that the wounds didn’t match the defendant’s story. That’s not determining the lawfulness of the death, although it’s likely good evidence towards that determination.
I think the fact that she is dead prove the unlawfullness of her death. Unless you can tell me a story where an unarmed person could be lawfully shot in the chest. The unlawfulness description isn’t why most people are upset about this story.
In Texas it’s legal to shoot a thief in the back as they’re fleeing.
And I wasn’t speaking to what most people were upset about; I was nitpicking because 2/3 of OP’s excerpts were about the coroner.