The prosecutors charged him with 2nd degree murder. The jury didn't agree. They should have charged him with something more reasonable if they really wanted him convicted. But apparently he's not guilty of the charges brought against him. Maybe something less, sure, but that's not what the trial was about. He shouldn't be guilty of something more extreme just because he's guilty of SOMETHING.
He should still have to prove that his life was actually threatened if that is what he claims. Otherwise I could shoot you dead and subsequently injure myself and claim you knocked me down and attempted to rob me and I would be completely justified in killing you under the law.
He shouldn't have to prove it. That's exactly the point A2K made. You're saying he should prove it? Nooooot really. Is there doubt to a story that it wasn't in self defense? the jury believes so. Therefore, acquit. That's it. He didn't have to prove jack. He just had to show that there's doubt in the prosecutions claim.
And yes, you can shoot me and frame it to look like self defense if you cover up enough evidence. But of course you can. That's always been known. I don't even see your point in saying that.
CS/CpE. Yay engineering!