Do I have this right? The shooter goes onto the property of another man, orders man around his property, draws a gun on him, points it at him, threatens him with gun, before shooting and killing the man on his property because he thought the man had commited rape based on heresay eveidence?
Shooter belongs in jail if you ask me.
He shot him because he feared for his own safety. He didn't draw his gun until the other guy went for his. He didn't shoot until he actually saw the other guy's weapon.
Reading the article, we find that the shooter knew the man he shot lived in the general area, but not which house he lived in. It was far enough away that another neighbor gave him a ride to the area, rather than him just walking over, although he had apparently walked in the shootee's area on other occasions. He had no way of knowing that was the other guys property, if indeed it was his.
The information was not hearsay from his point of view, he got it directly from the witness, his daughter, thus it was first person reporting. If the man he shot was on trial for rape or assault, the shooter's daughters testimony would not be hearsay. The shooter's testimony about what his daughter told him, would be.