The defence claimed that Foster was pointing his gun (despite having the safety on and no round chambered). So I suspect that you can't just shoot someone because you found their walk threatening, or they would have presented a defence that wasn't contradicted by all the other eye witnesses.

He wasn't defending himself.

1. Perry had made multiple posts and direct messages on social media expressing his desire to shoot Black Lives Matter protesters, writing in messages, "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," and "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters."

2. Perry had stated that someone could shoot protesters and get away with it by claiming self-defense.

3. There was no evidence that Foster had pointed his weapon, and other eyewitnesses contradicted Perry's account that he had. AS did the fact that Foster's weapon was recovered with its safety on and no cartridge in the chamber, so it would not have made sense for him to point his weapon.

The jury were correct. And the sentencing was reasonable.