Please Tell Me in What Way Nathaniel Woods is an "Innocent Man?"

Dear Martin Luther King III,

Please tell me in what way Nathaniel Woods is an "innocent man?" Have you even read the transcript of the trial in which Mr. Woods was convicted?  Mr. Woods and his buddy, Mr. Spencer, were known drug dealers who dealt drugs. More than two people came forward at Mr. Woods' trial and stated that these two both dealt drugs together each day in a partnership from their house. These people testified that both had made statements that they were tired of the police bugging them. Mr. Woods had a warrant out for his arrest because he had already allegedly harmed another person.

When the police officers went to Mr. Woods' apartment that fateful day, they did not have any weapons drawn. They asked Mr. Woods to come out so they could serve the warrant--which he refused to do. Mr. Woods asked to see the warrant, and even after they showed it and his picture to him, he refused to come out of the house, and ran back into the living room, where Mr. Spencer was waiting with a rifle. At this time the one police officer did pull out a can of mace, but according to witness testimony, this mace was never used. In fact, Mr. Woods kept the police officers attention away from Mr. Spencer by begging the police officer not to spray him and telling him he surrendered.

Please explain in what way a person who deals drugs to others in the neighborhood, and who allegedly hurt others so badly there was a warrant for his arrest, and who instead of surrendering at the door when presented with the warrant ran into the house--into the only room in the house where his co-partner in dealing drugs could easily shoot the police officers trying to arrest him--, and then upon leaving the house stepped out of the way so Mr. Spencer could shoot yet another police officer when Mr. Woods opened the door and saw him standing in the doorway--please explain how this man is "innocent." Keep in mind that under federal law (which Mr. Woods was not tried under since he had been already convicted and sentenced to death under Alabama law), if you are a drug dealer and homicide is committed in the course of your dealing drugs that you can receive the death penalty.  The supreme court has upheld this law. Both Mr. Woods and Mr. Spencer had made previous statements multiple times (whether in "jest" or not) that they were tired of the police interfering with their trade and wanted to kill the police to show them they were tired of it. Is not the one way to determine whether a statement is made in jest or not by the actions that follow that statement?

About 70,000 people die each year from overdosing on drugs. Nearly 14,000 people died from cocaine overdoses in 2017 alone. The highest rate of cocaine deaths affected African Americans. Do you really think your father would be proud that you are calling Mr. Woods, who was a noted cocaine dealer prone to violence, including the domestic assault warrant that was being served to him at the time of the officers deaths, "innocent?" Multiple people testified to these facts at Mr. Woods' trial--the same trial you claim was "mishandled," if you had taken the time to read it before making a statement about it. You seem to think that just because a known drug dealer is not the trigger man in a homicide he should not be convicted and sentenced to death--but the laws of our land say different. How are you advancing the relationship between people of different skin tones and cultural backgrounds when you stand behind a drug dealer who instead of going with the cops when served a warrant ran into his home to a room where his co-drug dealing buddy had a gun aimed on them?