While prosecutors are calling it premeditated, a lot of talk has centered around the opinion Nasser Hamad was defending himself in the Howland shooting that killed two people and wounded three others. Our 21 News legal analyst Matt Mangino weighed in on the strength of the suspect's argument in court.

A sign that reads "Free Nasser #selfdefense" has popped up outside what used to be the crime scene in Howland.

Inside the courtroom Monday, Nasser Hamad's attorney at the time said "his position is he did nothing but defend himself."

So how will Hamad's self defense argument for killing two people and wounding three others stand up in court?

"If we rely on what the defendant's statement is it seems like a self defense claim here is a stretch," described 21 News legal analyst Matt Mangino.

There has to be imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death to act with lethal force.

At question, was that threat there after a fist fight when the five victims went back to the van and Hamad went back into his house.

"He could have locked the door, called police. They got into the van so there was no immient threat at that point. So for him to retrieve a gun and come out and begin to shoot makes self defense tough to prove in this case."

Typically the burden of proof is on the state to prove the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but for self defense cases in Ohio, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

"The second time he came out after the first shooting, with his weapon loaded again and began to shoot again, clearly makes a self defense claim a bit of a stretch in this case," he said.

The Castle Doctrine allows deadly force for an invasion when your inside your home.

Mangino explained "that isn't the case here. Certainly he's on his property but it doesn't appear that any confrontation occured on his porch or anybody tried to get into his home."

Another point that Mangino mentioned, Hamad's statements to police in the affidavit are public record so there is not that guesswork of what he did.