[UnpossibleJim]

I don't know what happened and I fully admit that, but let's take the cop section out of it, so none of this "Cops lie all the time" business.

    1) A person was shot by someone at the scene

    2) A different person who was in conflict with the first person had a gun with the same ballistic profile (caliber etc.)

    3) There are two separate parties with an interest in the outcome who witnessed the crime

    4) The first party with an interest, was actively aggrivating people at the scene, causing hightened tensions

    5) The second party was in direct conflict with the first

I have a hard time believing the first party shot their own in order to press charges on the second party. It doesn't pass the Occam's razor test, TBH

EDIT: I suck at formatting

[woodruffw]

It doesn't have to pass Occam's razor. It has to pass (or would have had to, had they not killed him) the standard of reasonable doubt.

Edit: Sorry, this puts words in your mouth. I mean to say that I don’t think Occam’s Razor is a sufficient level of belief in these kinds of situations.