He had already shot someone before the other person with a gun drew it and pointed it at him. You have not seen the unedited video from the beginning, or have forgotten what it showed.

I'm not even sure if this is true or not, I'm assuming it's not, but can you explain to the class how it is that you can be okay with the people who are dead being victim blamed, all the while everyone on planet earth knows the piece of shit traveled there precisely to stir up trouble, and it's not remotely far fetched to think he hoped for an excuse to kill? The result of him traveling there with the intent, to at-minimum agitate and intimidate, is dead people who would be alive today if he hadn't made that decision.

I think to make an argument that a dead person deserves to be dead, you either have to stifle any ounce of empathy a human being normally has, or consider the dead to be unredeemable evil monsters. But maybe you can explain it differently?

Why won't you consider that they pursued him in self-defense?

A dude enters a protest with the intent to agitate, points his rifle at people. Some people attempt to disarm him. He trips over his own feet while fleeing and decides his only option is to shoot some people.

You say he shot in self-defense, but you won't say the protestors pursuing him were acting in self-defense. Why?