No more cynical than I. I always look at the evidence and play the “ring of truth” game when evaluating testimony/claims made by either side.
Over the last 15 ;years I’ve reviewed literally thousands of LEO and civilian shootings and in not one case where I’ve said which way it would eventually be ruled or play out in court have I been wrong.
Where drug dealers are concerned I have no mercy at all and under the law in this case I see no way he isn’t convicted if the jury follows the law.
All self defense claims are dependent on us being lawfully present and acting in a lawful manner. As this case reads either he was there to make a drug deal, or there to rip off his boss. Any use of a firearm in connection with either is a felony and so it would require one of those extreme exceptions I mentioned above for it to be found that he even could have acted in lawful self defense.
I’m not familiar with the case and have no idea of the makeup of the jury but I don’t see it ending well for the guy.
I can certainly see the prosecutor trying to twist it into a drug deal gone bad/attempted robbery to make his case but in truth that shouldn’t be necessary. It may be a case where the prosecutor is swinging for the fences and throwing out everything he can in order to get anything to stick as that’s a common tactic, albeit one I frown upon.
The demographics of the jury could easily outweigh the law but again, I haven’t’ looked at it.