The prosecution, led by Bill Wirskye, rejected that narrative entirely. They described the incident as a deliberate and unjustified act of violence.
Wirskye argued it was a “sneak attack,” carried out by someone who arrived armed and chose escalation over retreat. He stressed that multiple chances to walk away were ignored.
At the heart of the case was a key legal question: can someone provoke a confrontation and still claim self-defense? For the jury, this became the decisive issue.
