Same here.
The criminal intent in this case is to deliberately ignore the obvious and imminent risk to life he was placing that woman in. It's like storing your dynamite out on the front lawn overnight, because the basement flooded and the neighborhood kids grabbed it while you were sleeping. It's the magnitude of the ignored consequences that make it criminal. The only defence is mental defect.
Nope.... it's not nearly that deliberate or predictable. I don't have a clear indication what this scene looked like, the angles, distances, views or the skill and clarity this guy had. It would be a tough call, and this jury made it this way. This one guy was deemed to be undeserving of charges by that jury that discussed it just like we are but in more detail. No matter what issues we grapple with here, we have a lot more time for analysis and 20/20 hindsight at our disposal than he had at the time. We can't measure him against whether his actions were perfect, rather whether they were ~reasonable~.
From being shot in the head.
I'd bet that those here willing to fry the shooter would totally lose their mentally facilities just by being shot at, much less taking a round to the head.