I suspect that erasing video - unsuccessfully, at that - was more of a jury red flag for "evidence tampering" than cleaning up cases and dropped beer . . . though I personally wouldn't regard it as "evidence" until after police defined it as such. (And I'm aware my opinion means squat to a court unless I'm actually on the jury.) One lesson here is - if you're going to erase video, make sure it's gone beyond recovery.9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property . . . (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: . . . (B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
His statements to police without benefit of counsel certainly helped to do him in; this ought to be a lesson to all of us: LAWYER UP before talking to police. I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him . . . but since they didn't like the thief very much either, they didn't recommend prison time.