It feels to me like the question of how humans react to life-threatening situations is less relevant here than the question of how humans judge what _is_ a life

It feels to me like the question of how humans react to life-threatening situations is less relevant here than the question of how humans judge what _is_ a life threatening situation. Are you in imminent danger of death if you encounter a teenager walking away from you in the middle of the street at night? I think most people would judge that situation to be non-life-threatening and I guess the jury in the referenced case agreed.