Qualified immunity of cops says your first paragraph is useless as simply being armed is more than enough reason to kill you without legal repercussions for the state (cop)
States with stand your ground laws are more than enough legal justification for a citizen to shoot someone pulling what the defendants did in this case. Drive aggressively, block a runner, get out openly armed then your asking to be shot by a runner concealed carrying. The runner can be judged by 12 instead of carried by 6 - isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?
So maybe this fiction of being able to legally take a hostage makes sense in your head but it sure sounds like a good way for folks to end up dead.
1) Wrong. Cops cannot shot you just because you are armed. Period. Many a cop has gone to jail over that. You live in a fairy tale world or a different country if you believe that to be the case for the US.
2) Wrong again. Stand your ground doesn't give anyone carte blanch to shoot people just because they want to or feel frightened over anything.
In both cases a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death has to be present. Just because someone is armed next to you doesn't give you automatic reasonable fear. Being armed is a LEGAL activity. I know most of the clowns around here don't like that in our country, but it is the law of the land. In order to be armed, you have to CARRY the gun, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't state concealed guns only so as not to upset some little snowflakes sensibilities at the mere sight of a gun being held by another person. Got a little fact for you, full size shotguns aren't something one can conceal readily on a person's body. So the only way to be "armed" with one is in your hand or a sling. Which again, nothing in the 2nd Amendment states as person has to have their firearms attached to their body with a sling.
As I stated, the crux of the case is who started the activity of using attempted lethal force first in this case. If Travis pointed his gun at Ahmaud first to get him to stop, then that is the illegal escalation of force and Ahmaud has a right to defend himself. Which if that is the case Travis will go to jail for that. If the case is Ahmaud decided to rush Travis first because he was angry at them or having an unreasonable fear of people being armed around him then it was justified self defense.
The issue as I see it for how this case will play out is based on credibility. There is no contention on how Ahmaud was killed. That is on video and not in dispute. What is not on video is who escalated the use of force first. The only evidence we, the public, have seen to that is witness testimony from the McMichaels and Rodney who are all being charged right now. So it is literally up to the jury to decide their credibility on their testimony. Unless there was another witness, or some other video footage, the prosecution has nothing but to go after their credibility. Which is why every prelim motion the prosecution was making so far was to impede anything that would bolster their credibility or reduce the credibility of Ahmaud. The defense is obviously making motions for the opposite.
I don't really care if you don't understand how this case is going to play out or how the world works. Maybe you should take a few civics courses from a non woke school?