[WL-law]

If the facts indicate there just might be a reason to think reasonable fear for one's well being was present, one would hope that the prosecutor would seek first the truth and second the inditement.

We wholeheartedly agree. So why do you presume that this wasn't the case re the prosecutor -- I do unless someone can provide me a reason to suspect otherwise.

[Shooter 2.5]

The prosecuting attorney had to have evidence the two men gunned down the invader with murderous intent because they were innocent until proven guilty BEFORE they went to trial.

So what was this damning evidence the prosecuting attorney had BEFORE they went to trial?

[Ches]

"We wholeheartedly agree."

Not if the facts and events were hammered to fit a template. I have seen to many zealous prosecutors who, for reasons of their own vanity, political agenda or perceived "calling", will not back down even when they have a bad case. Overcharging is common in some jurisdictions for purposes of plea bargaining, as well as sending "messages" to the public that even if you are innocent we will make your life miserable for daring to use a firearm.

There is no doubt in my mind that all too often the political agenda comes first.