I mean it sucks when the guy who shoots us isnt black. Black on black crime is so ordinary we find out the race of the guy who shot and are able to put things in perspective. I feel this is harder to do when the perpetrator is non-black.
In this case you have a guy whos working a job where his spot is getting robbed and hes already been shot during a robbery. This man is then confronted with a guy whos punching him in the face while hes holding a gun. Its not out of bounds to assume that ol boy is going to shoot him, and if he gets arrested, what kind of sentence should he get and under what crime. Are we expecting civilians to know the difference between someone with intent to humiliate with a punch in the face compared to someone brandishing a weapon? Its just not realistic. You punch a guy in the face whos pointing a gun at you, you gonna get that work..........BUT..................
If you're going to charge the storekeeper though, maybe its under the grounds that he opened the door to continue talking to the dude and got punched when he could have left the door locked, difusing the situation. What did he say to the man when he opened the door? If it was something about, get your black c00n ass outta here before i blow youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, then he got socked well

he needs some time for provoking the situation and brandishing a weapon on an innocent man who then reacted in self defense. I really need to know what he said before he got up in ol boys face and what they were arguing about, because from the looks of it, he had a weapon when he opened the door and said some wild shyt before getting his jaw tested.
I think we need more details. Why were they areguing and why what was said before that punch.