Read #66. There are reasonable doubts about Deal's claims.
How do you shoot someone in the back of the head, in self-defense?
While it does raise questions, don't automatically assume that because someone was shot in the back or in the back of the head, it was not self defense. If you've been holding a gun, or in this case a bat, on me and I am armed, my first chance to get my shot off and save my life might be when you turn your head or turn around for a second. Again, not saying it was right or wrong based solely on that, just that it could still be right.
Now, if it said that the guy was shot in the back of the head while kneeling with his arms bound behind his back...
Ever been in a fight sinkspur? It's not exactly as neat and clean as "Rock'm Sock'm Robots."
If the police can demonstrate it wasn't self-defense, fine. But they'd better also be able to prove the guy wasn't kidnapped or being threatened with physical violence by the two other guys.
When the police take on the appearence of agressively defending two punks who got what they deserved, regardless of the character of the one who delivered it, they diminish the respect of their own badges. The way I see it, if they believe that the guy was kidnapped and threatened with violence, that ought to be enough to diminish their zeal to look much further into it.
Happens to handcuffed *suspects* in police cars all the time.