There is no fooling just sequence of facts and events you are denying. The victim was shot because he refused direct police order and endangered himself by mak

There is no fooling just sequence of facts and events you are denying. The victim was shot because he refused direct police order and endangered himself by making the SWAT thinking he had a gun. The guy calling the SWAT is an effete asshole but there's no way he could've predicted the endangerment that the victim put on himself by directly refusing orders to keep his hand up (he didnt and he was shot thinking he was pulling a gun). So if you wanted to prove intent to kill, you'd have to 1) Show the probability of getting killed by SWAT vs Hitman is the same, which the judge will throw out as intent. 2) Show that the SWAT caller could've predicted that victim would put himself in danger by disobeying a direct armed officer. 3) Retrospectively show intent to kill in previous SWAT calls the perpetrator has been charged for. This is just the harsh realities of court. It's very hard for prosecutors for cases like this, especially when the public is so skewed to one version of the story. It's ironic that such zealous energy from the mob crowd will only hurt the case, the internet and the mob mentality doesn't prevail against examination of facts and evidence.... Hence this is why I stopped pursuing a legal career...because I realized that true justice will rarely be delivered. To convict someone, you need more than just conjectures and emotional response, you are up against highly intelligent defense lawyers who are expert in raising doubts in those that react with emotion, not logic.