"Did Deedy have sufficient reason to fear for his life, of great bodily injury, etc.?"
Anything beyond this simple question is smoke and mirrors.
I disagree. With Deedy claiming self defense, he has already done the prosecutor's job by admitting that he has killed somebody.
The question is, "was he justified in his use of deadly force?" and will the jury buy it. That is the case that Deedy's defense attorney needs to make. If someone picks a fight with someone, gets beat up and gets scared for his life, he is not justified in the use of deadly force, because in that case, he would be the bad guy. In Deedy's case, the video doesn't seem to support that he had no other options regarding shooting Elderts.
It seems his only other card is the LEO card. But even that seems kinda iffy. The other question is: "was Deedy acting in the way a LEO would act in that situation?"
I agree that there seems to be nothing good that will come out of this for CCW's case. In this instance, the only thing that could come out of this is that the LEO guy is in the wrong. Would a CCW'd Elderts have made this outcome better? Thinking about this whole case makes me mad... Firearms and alcohol really does not mix.
I didn't watch the trial today but bringing a racism discussion into this is kinda sad to hear. I don't think bringing the racism thing into this will bring about justice / a fair trial for Deedy but will only muddy the discussion, make this into a circus, bring out the prejudices of people and further ethnic/racial tensions.
At the very least, I hope that everyone can stay mature and objective about this and learn from the mistakes that people made that night.
I am curious to hear what Deedy's defense will say.