| Rath said: This is why I hate the USA legal system. Somebody was commiting a crime that didn't actually affect him so he had the right to kill them? He was not acting a self defense (as he was not actually threatened in any way) nor in defense of his property (as they weren't on his property). Its basically a vigilante execution and that is something I can never agree with. |
What if his neighbor was his best friend or brother-in-law?
Lawbreakers take a risk when they tresspass and burgle.
The day we use the law to reward criminals and put citicizens who stand against them in prison for their stance, is the day that America is no longer free from the tyrrany of men.
How dare anyone insinuate that violations of the law shouldn't matter to someone just because they didn't happen to you?
Oh, that woman was just getting raped. It was none of my business, she wasn't even related to me, so I called the police and waited.
Don't commit trespass in a southern state and then run when someone has a gun on you. They can and probably should shoot you for free. That's the bottom line here. Anything else is simply ideology.
None of us know the whole situation, so we shouldn't use what we think we woulda or shoulda done to be our stick of what this guy did. He said he thought his life was in danger, I believe him. Have no reason not to. If you have a gun on someone who is close to you and they bolt, if they did bolt towards you, you better shoot, or you are DEAD. Details here don't matter as much as the fact that the man says he was afraid for his life, the shooting obviously wasn't pre-meditated, and there was no motive. Unless you just assume the guy is a psycho with no real evidence, you would have to let him go also, if you were on the jury, or you'd be breaking the law yourself.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
