Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Not at all.
Do you KNOW they were no threat? Do we have an absolute report of what happened once he went outside? Because if they threatened him in ANY way he was justified.
Even if not (in which case his actions WERE illegal and morally questionable) the law was followed completely. He was brought to a grand jury, they said he's free, that's the end of it. I totally support that decision as, regardless of the legality of his actions, two absolutely horrible wastes of human flesh will no longer plague the world and I celebrate that. I just wish every criminal like them would face the same fate.
What don't you understand about shooting someone in the back. If you shoot them in the back, they are not facing you. That means they are running away from you, and not running at you. How is a person running away from you a threat?
Do you have the IQ of a kumquat?
Having your back to someone is NOT running away from them, and even if it is if it happened subsequent to a threat and during the process of firing the weapon there is no question that it was justified.
In other words:
A man with a shotgun goes out and says stop, the police are on the way.
One or both of the criminals says "we'll fucking kill you old man" and takes a step towards him.
The man raises the shotgun to defend his life, believing that he is reasonably in danger.
As he does so the two men naturally stop their forward movement and begin to turn away.
The man, already committed to an action which takes only a second or two to complete, fires the gun at the two threats.
The end result is a lawful shooting, despite the fact that the criminals were hit in the back.
I'm not saying that IS what happened, I'm saying that COULD happen, and if you don't have proof, if there is reasonable doubt, then you MUST side with the good guy against the KNOWN criminals.