Those statements are nonsensical. The victim had no gun and was shot in the back. Also his death was due to nothing other than the gunshot wound deliberately and with malice aforethought inflicted upon him by his bitch girlfriend - if she hadn't shot him in the back he would not have needed medical attention in the first place. In the US murder cases have been brought years later if the victim dies of something that can be linked to some crime even that far back. But in this case the jury refused to recognize that the real reason the victim was dead was because he was shot, with malice aforethought, by the jealous, murderous bitch girlfriend.
The self hating foreman says that the perp "had the right to shoot" her boyfriend, who posed no threat to her and whom she followed, is actually proving my case of the jury bias, and not yours that she is actually innocent or murder. He had no reason to think that she was acting in self defense.
What it boils down to is that a woman got away with murdering her boyfriend by shooting him in the back. No man would be acquitted after shooting his girlfriend in the back. No jury foreman would say, well she might have had a gun, or well, she might have survived if she had had better medical care, so let's acquit him. No, that only works for women. If a jealous boyfriend follows her girlfriend to another man's house to confront he would be labeled as a possessive creep and it would be a strike against him. Not so for women. If a jealous, possessive woman follows her boyfriend to another woman's house to confront him that is used as a strike against the victim even if he gets murdered by the jealous girlfriend (who is deemed "justified" in murdering out of jealousy).