Legal discussion on slightly old court case over an alleged self-defense shooting. Court opinion linked below. Do you agree or disagree with the end result to affirm the conviction of the shooter and the explanation the supreme court used to get to that opinion?

The court opinion is long winded and will take a while to read, but the entire opinion is important to the discussion.If the tow truck driver's story was true and the victim in this case did brandish a firearm first at the tow truck driver, then how is the tow truck driver's actions not considered an act of self-defense? I thought brandishing a firearm (even just showing it) in a threatening manner was considered an act of deadly force and allowed you to use deadly force to protect yourself. Also whether a man threatening you with a gun has it out and pointed at you, down at his side or in his waistband should seem irrelevant because it takes only a split second to draw and fire. The final part of the opinion about having "another probable means of avoiding the danger" in that immediate moment of danger is a duty to retreat being reinstated in a previously statutorily "stand your ground" jurisdiction by judicial opinion in clear violation of the statutes. I don't know if there's more to the story the jury heard and how the credibility was determined so I'm not saying the decision to affirm the case is wrong, but some of the means they used to get there is clearly arbitrary and contradicts the laws. Unless the court has somehow determined somewhere in another case long ago that the "stand your ground" law repealing the "other probable means of avoiding the danger" element is somehow unconstitutional for some reason then this is a clear violation mentioning that at the jury trial or during the appeals.What's your take on the entire casehttps://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/court-of-appeals/2017/5502.html via /r/CCW https://ift.tt/3AnuyBg