You may believe otherwise, but in reality thats exactly what you are doing.
This kind of worthless pop psychology was a dangerous road to start down, the justice system currently stinks with it, and while we contemplate feelings and motives real people are suffering & dying as a consequence.
I'm surprised everyone - criminals and defense attornies aside - doesn't see that by now.
>>You may believe otherwise, but in reality thats exactly what you are doing.<<
Nope. I am bringing up the concept of “mitigating circumstances”. That is not justifying the actions.
I am also only bringing up the concept of these mitigating circumstances. I am not saying they actually existed. I’m saying that, barring new information, it is within the realm of possibility that they existed.
I think the main disconnect many of the posters and I are having is that I am using this case to address the general concepts that this case brings up, as opposed to whether they actually apply in this case.
>>This kind of worthless pop psychology was a dangerous road to start down, the justice system currently stinks with it, and while we contemplate feelings and motives real people are suffering & dying as a consequence.<<
I disagree. Human beings are dangerous. A person does well to learn at an early age to not antagonize other people. You may not deserve their over-reaction but, like the old defensive driving commercials from the 1960’s: Yeah, he was right. Dead right.
I’m speaking generally here. Not about this particular case.