I just don't know how someone lives with themselves after they have shot people in the back who were retreating from him and killed them.
I just don't know how someone lives with themselves after they have shot people in the back who were retreating from him and killed them.
How so CM?I see this verdict as a strong message that society is firmly behind the victims of crime.
I just truly do wonder about the back shots...sounds like cold blooded murder on one hand. But then on the other, like I have stated before, if someone came at me or mine with the intent to do grave harm, once I decided to fire, I would not stop until the chamber was empty.
I'm glad I'm not the one, deciding the outcome of this, on the one hand you have a guy shooting other people in the back, on the other hand the victims were where they had no business being - with criminal intent. Was the guy doing the shooting thinking rationally or was he just reacting to a situation he didn't have a chance to fully evaluate, while in a mindset of rage and fear?
Yes. I don't think these things get "thought through" before hand.The instant they made the choice to follow him home, there was no coming back for any of them. Dead or in jail was the only way individuals were walking away from that.
What a tragedy.
If you hunt someone down in an isolated area and attempt to kill them, you have to expect that they will try to kill you first, and might forget 'the rules' while doing so.
How so CM?
I agree that all of the evidence should have been admissible. I hate that part of our legal system where facts can be omitted and things twisted and manipulated to appear a certain way. It just obscures the truth, but then I guess "truth is relaltive to where one stands when viewing it".
I just truly do wonder about the back shots...sounds like cold blooded murder on one hand. But then on the other, like I have stated before, if someone came at me or mine with the intent to do grave harm, once I decided to fire, I would not stop until the chamber was empty.
I agree with everything you have said. The place where I will fault him is on the alteration of the weapon.The perps have a history of home invasions. That in itself doesn't justify that their life be extinguished, but that one of the risks of doing that kind of crime I guess.
The 'victims' track record notwithstanding, how much latitude do we provide the criminals in sheltering them from the consequences of their actions?
The way I see it, that's the chance that the home invaders took when they made a premeditated decision to take their actions... The article stated that the invaders didn't intend to kill him - I had to chuckle; one with a sword and another with a golf club... I'm trying to imagine the degree of permanent injury that would result if they guy actually survived the assault.
I really don't have any sympathy for the invaders and just because they ran away once they realized they brought a knife to a gun fight, doesn't change my mind
As a cop told a friend, if you wound someone who is trying to do you harm, finish him off. That way he can't sue you for damages.
lmao... gotta look at all possible consequencesNo one can accuse Cliffy of not seeing the practical side.-
I agree with everything you have said. The place where I will fault him is on the alteration of the weapon.
I still wonder what killing like that does to one's psyche. It can't be good.
Yes. I don't think these things get "thought through" before hand.
Also it could have been him dead or permanently disabled either from the beating or the sword.
Hm, thanks for the info taxslave.Irrelevant. He changed nothing on the weapon. Clips are interchangeable. Not that long ago they were legal to own as well.