If you rob a grocery store with a toy gun, isn't that still an armed robbery? These 2 high-dollar lawyers should keep their mouths shut and rely on the castle doctrine. If they're saying the guns weren't operational/loaded, that actually weakens their case in my eyes. If they were truly in fear of their lives, they weren't meeting lethal force with lethal force. They may not have had the duty to retreat but that was the far better option vs. brandishing props. Maybe they're foils in a bid to sabotage the castle doctrine?