It matters for culpability for the same reason as the is allowed as evidence, it establishes the motive and pattern of conduct that led to a confrontation
Take the same examples we've already brought up earlier in the thread. The guy who got chased by a BLM mob and turned and fired on them after trying to run away, and the guy who shot someone who attacked him while he argued with a driver about a handicapped parking spot. In the former case, prosecutors showed he had been on the 4chan gun board making racist comments and talking about how he wanted a chance to shoot a rioter. They used it to establish that he brought a gun to a protest with the intent to start a confrontation. And the guy who shot someone over a parking spot? He had been striking up arguments trying to bait people into fights over that parking spot for months and shot the first person who punched him.
We now have evidence that Alex Pretti was engaged in a pattern of seeking violent confrontations with federal agents while armed with a deadly weapon. It establishes that Pretti was the instigating actor
You’re still not answering: timestamp the imminent lethal threat.
If you can’t, then your argument is “pattern = killable,” and that’s not law, it’s vibes.
Absent an imminent threat, is lethal force justified? Yes or No