The best witness defending Woods seems to be the shooter, Kerry Spencer.
From his telling, it doesn't sound like Woods was detained at the time the shooting started:
I'm not quite clear on how that fits with when the officers were killed or with the timing of when Woods was being detained in the back of the house.
Accepting Spencer's account at face value, it doesn't seem to me that Woods should be considered fully morally culpable for the killings, but it also doesn't seem incoherent that he would be held legally accountable for them. When you sit in a crack house, selling crack, hanging out with guys carrying automatic weapons and one of those guys kills someone, it's not exactly an unexpected development that no reasonable person could predict.
It seems like we're really mixing two separate arguments together in the thread - is Woods culpable and is the death penalty an acceptable punishment. Of course, there's some overlap between the two arguments, but I'm not sure people are being clear enough in how they're thinking about it. One could argue that the death penalty is acceptable, but only in cases where an individual is clearly a murderer and/or ongoing threat. Nonetheless, given the current state of the law, this doesn't seem like a grievous miscarriage of justice even if it makes an argument for a change going forward.
- - - Updated - - -
That connection seems pretty unlikely to me - demographics that most favor the death penalty aren't high murder rate demographics (see here for recent Pew polling data). Elderly whites are the group that most supports the death penalty - this is one of the lowest murder rate demographics in the United States (although men favor it much more than women, so maybe there's
something related to level of comfort with violence). The age gap is particularly striking - young people are much more likely to resort to violence, but support the death penalty at lower rates.