Oh? And do you have a source for statement?
Obviously I would be singing a different tune if the situation was entirely different. But it wasn't. None of the information we have available (or that I have read anyway) has any mention of the teens carrying a weapon. This was excessive force, plain and simple. The whole "shoot first, ask later" mentality is asinine. We should be allowed to kill someone because he or she might maybe possibly feasibly have a weapon that we don't know of? If he truly feared for his life he should have confronted them. He had the upper hand already. He had the weapon. The element of surprise. But he couldn't be bothered to take the seconds it would have taken to assess the situation properly? He shot him the moment he came into view, then proceeded to EXECUTE him after tumbled down the stairs. Tell me, sir. At what point was he a threat?