So your logic is that its not okay to follow someone and encroach their "self defense territory". But its okay to run up and record and antagonize people
This sounds like the George Zimmerman defense. So if Buck was in the right state and had his gun,and shot the antagonizer , He would be well within his rights since the antagonizer put hands on em. So dont give me that "but legally" mumbo jumbo lol. Buck had every right to do what he did,he was just too old and too weak to pull it off apparently.
But in terms of "legality", did we see Buck do anything illegal?if following people around and talking shyt isnt illegal when the first guy did it. How does it become illegal once Buck did?
"Bu bu but he had his mama and daughter with him"
Act like you got some damn sense then
He didn’t run up. He was walking on his way and started recording but he kept it moving.
Legally the guys may get off because there is no evidence of them being menacing but there is evidence of Buck being so. Your logic and the law are two different things. The law may say that guy had every right to do what HE had to do.
Antagonizer was retreating. If New York law says you can shoot a person in retreat show me that law or else you talking bullshyt homie.