Nine shots from an AR, WOW! Looks like Willow was doing his level best to kill the defendant.
Maybe, maybe not.
1. I am not a lawyer, but if the first shot, while the guy was coming at him was fatal, then the rest would at most be something like "desecrating a corpse".
2. The medical examiner only said "most likely" that is a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt. And, the shooter is entitled to a defense. He could very well claim that the man was still in his house and just got turned around and shot in the back during the fight. Or, even more likely since the dead guy had two friends with him, the shooter was shooting at them and just happened to hit the dead guy.
It just seems reasonable that if three guys come to your house and one of them breaks in with the intention to do harm you have the right to shoot as much and as often as you can until the threat is neutralized, which in this case is all 3 of them.
If he had shot all 3 and then executed them as they lay on on the ground he might be in trouble, but with two still standing he ought to be able to keep shooting...
“John warned Willow to stay back but Willow still came into John’s home. Willow instigated the violence...”
That points to what’s missing in the article that I’m certain the judge had to consider. What’s missing is what Willow said and his physical demeanor when charging into John’s home. What is the physical size of both men and ability to kick a$$.
If someone was physically superior to me, charging into my home in anger making threats I’d defend myself with whatever happened to be at hand also. And if this person was perceived to come back later with a rifle would I want to wait to get ambushed later?