I think that drawing any such conclusion would be pure speculation and outside my expertise in the practice of law. There is no new precedent set. This case has not changed or modified the standard that is used to determine what constitutes murder nor has it done anything to change the legal standard for self-defense. At most, it creates an example that others can attempt to reference in their motions going forward. I also see this case as highlighting the glaring loophole in their own statutory scheme concerning the carrying of rifles by minors.

My assumption was that the decision to proceed with charges was more because of public pressure than any political motivation. If no charges would be filed, then the public outcry could result in further civil unrest. This was a show that was put on for the public. With so much video evidence, it was only the media that made this seam like a big complicated spectacle.

As for the judge and prosecution, they operate on a different plane. I don't know any lawyer that would risk their license and reputation for a political move. Prosecutors make very little money and demonstrating their ineptitude on such a public scale could be beyond detrimental to their careers.