+2

continuing from the post below

The ruling of the court came as if the facts of the case were that the defendant's girlfriend came through the window and entered the toilet area then the defendant came shooting through the toilet area door thinking that she was an intruder. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

Also, from the excerpts, the court appears to speak about the lack of sufficient existence of a threat or the perception of a threat by the defendant to his life. Actually, before that, he did not show how what happened would make a reasonable person suddenly changes to act as if there was really an intruder in his home to begin with. Whether this was not included in the threat talk or just a higher level of specificity it adds support for that it was an intentional killing targeting that girl. 

In addition, what the court noticed regarding not firing a warning shot, despite all the claims by the defendant that he kept shouting on the allegedly perceived intruder to exit his home, also supports the intentional targeting to that girl.

At least for the lower court, I think that it could be a sever understatement to say that I would be very surprised if it was honest and not corrupt in its ruling on the case.I cant see how any reasonable layman jury would see a reasonable doubt in that girl was intentionally targeted to be killed so how about a jury entirely comprised of judges (or professionals in the judiciary depending on the status of the two other assistants who made the ruling with the lower court judge)?