I saw the video. The pharmacist certainly didn’t do himself any favors by lying and changing his story so many times. But in no way do I see this rising to murder 1.
It was the gun-wielding robbers that chose to create that incident that day. He finished it. I really don’t care that he emptied a second gun into the (mostly dead) perp. I don’t care if it was the extra shots that actually killed him (and really... that’s ~massive~ speculation on the part of the medical examiner).
Sure, I wish he was a more sympathetic figure. It was a douchebag thing to do to claim military service he didn’t have. It was stupid to bother lying about any of it. He should have been more honest about all of it. But all that said... there’s nothing here that rises to murder 1. OR any charge at all in my book.
Here’s the question: Who would I rather have as a neighbor? This pharmacist or the goons that robbed him? I’d take him in that, any day.
What is so difficult about looking at an entire event and seeing the actions of all parties, why treat it as if you have to take a side of one bad guy or the other, why not just accept that it was a freak case of robbers trying to rob a Walter Mitty psychopath.
I find the coincidence of these characters all meeting up as the amusing aspect of this.