Putting a hand on his choulder is hardly "attacking, or provoking." When a criminal refuses to leave on his own, he is the one who creates a situation where physical force will be used against him. Therefore it's HIS wrong, not the guards. This is sick they are appealing. What a waste of our tax money, as usual. An ethical lawyer would advise his client that because he murdered this man, he is going to pay. Period.

"An ethical lawyer would advise his client that because he murdered this man, he is going to pay."

Great; just where do you suggest we find one?!

RL, Malcolm WAS leaving. Every reporter who has commented on the trial said that the video CLEARLY shows Malcolm LEAVING the store, and the guard coming up behind and attacking him.
Malcolm was on his way out of the store, and he wasn't stealing anything, yet the guard attacked him.
At that point, it was the guard who was the initial aggressor. There is NO justification for the guard to have touched Malcolm. The question should have been if Malcolm used too much force, not if the killing was premeditated.

If you were his attorney, and the video clearly shows the guard as the initial aggressor, what would you do? This was a case of self defense, and 1st degree murder charges were simply not warranted.

Your comments prove your inability to read! Mr. Malcolm did not create any situation that justified Mr. Jenkins attacking him. The video clearly shows Mr. Jenkins reaching for Mr. Malcolm's throat not his shoulder. The video also clearly show Mr. Malcolm leaving as ordered. Read the article people making your comments. An ethical lawyer wouldn't have charge Mr. Malcolm with murder. He should have been charged with manslaughter to begin with since it was proven Mr. Jenkins started the physical confrontation. You always have a right to defend yourself! Did you miss the part about Mr. Jenkins trying to choke Mr. Malcolm? Three witnesses said they saw Mr. Jenkins get Mr. Malcolm in a head lock and one said he had Mr. Malcolm in a choke hold. Mr. Malcolm said he was being choked. Wouldn't you defend yourself if someone was choking you.

No, even if the security guard had grabbed me--in the store and in the presence of witnesses, I don't think I'd have felt it necessary to shot him.
Somebody who has a screaming fit because a clerk doesn't wait on him soon enough, and is packing a gun to boot, isn't my idea of a real stable guy.

Not with a gun: that is why the jury was given an option of convicting him for manslaughter, a 2nd degree felony.
Manslaughter is called "imperfect self defense."
If a person is attacked, but uses more force than is warranted in a given situation, they are guilty of imperfect self defense.

At worst, this case should have been charged with manslaughter, NOT 1st degree murder.

I really hope the DA isn't patting herself on the back for this one. 1st degree murder was simply not warranted.

What troubles me is that I can sit here and say that I wouldn't have shot him, but in that situation, who knows what you would have done.

You're walking out of a store (after being a jerk) and someone grabs you from behind, BOUNCES your head off the floor, and is getting you in a choke-hold.
WHAT would you do?

I honestly don't know, and it is deeply disturbing that a person in this situation isn't even given the benefit of the doubt and charged with manslaughter.

The message from Lohra Miller: you do NOT have a right to defend yourself. If she thought you did, 1st degree wouldn't have been charged.