Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.
In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.
Given that the whole point of the act was that the CEO and his company were indifferent to human life, one could argue that the shooter valued the life and dignity of his fellow beings far more than his target. Furthermore, the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to the vile strategies of this company in particular would seem to offer a very significant justification and excuse. Of course, malice aforethought is inherent to an assassination, so I guess they have him there.
In the end, though, the jury will be under no legal obligation to follow the law and could choose to find him not guilty if they agree with his reasons for acting.
I agree, its entirely possible that a jury may find his act of killing justified.