I think the problem here is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' part.
I think I'm pretty reasonable, but I continue to doubt the merits of the case unless they are using criteria that has not been released publicly.
1. Owning guns != suspicious.
2. Evading unmarked cars that appear to be following you = completely normal. We have crazies out there, didn't you know?
3. Saying that the noise bothered you != suspicious
and so on.
If they have a shell casing that matches, or if he failed a GSR after lying about using a gun, or if someone saw him do it, then THAT could be appropriate... but the article is making a circumstantial case to convict him in the court of public opinion. How can he get a fair trial?