Your analysis of the facts is too speculative to prosecute under the law and is based on too many assumptions. The law very clearly states even if he was in violation of certain statutes, he had a right to use deadly force if the threat against him met a certain threshold. There is video and direct testimony that contradicts your analysis. You seem really invested in him being guilty. I personally don't care either way. I only care that the law was applied justly and, in this case, I believe it was.