I think most of us can agree that the extra shots were unnecessary. Now can we just agree that we are not lawyers and we will not know what the outcome of this situation is until he goes to court and that's over with?
I think most of us can agree that the extra shots were unnecessary. Now can we just agree that we are not lawyers and we will not know what the outcome of this situation is until he goes to court and that's over with?
it would make a pretty boring message board if we only talked about things we are experts in. For starters, I don't think there are a lot of NBA head coaches, GMs or owners posting around here.
He was angry, that is why he killed them. When he cooled off he realized he had done wrong, or he would have just called the police. In most states you are supposed to avoid the confrontation if possible. Once they are down, you get out and get the cops. I know Texas says you can fight, but even that might require them having a weapon. Most people know this because of the people who have gone to jail for torturing intruders.
Still, if you rob a house and find a bunch of guns, do you risk your luck and go back?
Those who are saying eh won't get off, remember Bernie Goetz in NYC. It really depends on how the jury feel about the intruders. In the Goetz case everyone was tired of being terrorized on the subways and loved what he did, which was similar shooting a guy in the head after he had already gotten the upper hand.
I don't see how people think this guy will be set free. Do you all know a ton more about the legal system than me? Probably, but he blatantly describes how he executed two kids in cold blood. I mean, come on.
One kid. He executed one kid in cold blood. The first seemed perfectly reasonable (unless I'm missing where he fires a few more shots into the kid's body), but the second seemed to be the execution.