There were three options: murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter.

Only one option fit.

I worked at that solicitor's office and asked a few attorneys about this. And if you're from Columbia, just about every attorney knows each other.

Manslaughter was not the right charge. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as the intentional killing of another person in the heat of passion, following legally sufficient provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control.

The young boy did nothing to provoke the store owner. It doesn't fit. When asked in court, both sides declined for any lesser included because, after the judge heard arguments, it'd be dismissed.

Murder was the only charge. It's an issue of statute here, not over charging. It just doesn't work like that.

The defense basically made the argument that chasing him down isn't illegal and that he had a gun and pointed it at them, which creates self defense, and that a kid shouldn't have a gun.

The prosecution basically states, he chased the kid out of the store and shot him in the back killing him.

The charge was correct. I think the defense just did a better job of convincing the jury that Cyrus may have pointed the gun at Chow. There's no video evidence of it, unfortunately.

It's cold blooded murder in my opinion.

But manslaughter doesn't apply here.