Well lets see, thugs, enter a business, armed, try to rob, pointing firearm at business owner, business owner forced into a situation he did not ask to placed in, draws his own weapon and fires, one thug drops, another flees, owner chases after one who leaves and fires shots at him, to bad he missed, owner re eneters business, now you cannot see the thug off camera, so you dont know if he is trying to ge tup, reaching for a weapon or what he is doing, granted business owner at first does not act afraid of the thug, BUT then again I am sure, or willing to give the benefit of the doubt, that his mind is going a million differant directions, he looks over at the thug, owner produces another weapon, lesson here, carry a spare, and approaches the thug, who is still off camera, you cant see him, what he may or may not be doing, and business owner fires more shots into the thug.
So based off of that video, that I have seen, YES there is in my mind reasonable doubt. Without proof to the contray I would not and will not find a man guilty of murder.
So you are telling me that Mr Ersland would suffer from diarrhea of the mouth but fail to divulge this key fact? Something that would save his case if true but he keeps it to himself? lol