1. What I've posted is my opinion, and how I feel whatsoever has no bearing at all on the case, so do yourself a favor and knock off the condescending bullshit. yet you are posting it as why they should be incarcerating him?
2. From the very beginning, they have more than enough evidence to hold him. Read the very post you quoted, or any other in this discussion. i read them all; you're getting edgy but that doesn't say why they should be holding him pre-trial.
3. He is not innocent. He may have killed in self-defense which is innocence, as there is no law against killing in self-defense....correct?, which he has not proven to a jury, but the fact remains that he killed.
"killing" is not a crime. there are several levels of homicide and murder, including negligent homicide, but every state in the union allows killing in self-defense, to the best of my knowledge.
Do I believe it was self-defense? no. But you don't just subvert or fast-track the legal system whenever you happen to feel like doing it in full is a "waste of time" and you don't get to cherry-pick which cases get due process.
So, the only question that matters right now is if they can legally hold him before trial based on the evidence they have, and if he poses a risk of flight or to the community. I suspect they have their doubts, or they'd be holding him--even if the police handling seems very off, they still have the DA as well, and from what I gather, state police involvement.
it seems you want to make an emotional argument for if he should be free, but the police don't have that luxury and they are quite possibly worried about their case and/or a lawsuit