“...so how you can claim he was guilty of attempted murder because he didn’t run away?”
From the article:
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
Without any mention of an attack from the thief, then the attendant opened fire not under duress. And you’re right both ways, if the thief was shot in the chest, he wasn’t trying to escape either. The thief shot Diarra during the wrestling with wild shots, and Diarra shot the thief right in the chest. Of both shootings, only Diarra’s was a controlled shot. But both are guilty as the thief produced the gun and ended up firing shots while wrestling and Diarra wrestled the gun away from the thief and shot him intentionally and at the time without an identified attack.
So more is going to have to be explained until they can prove that the thief was threatening Diarra’s life and limb. At the point of his shooting the thief, there was none identified.
wy69
Your problem is that you’re basing your comments on what you’ve read in the article. That’s your first mistake. You can’t trust the media when it comes to reporting the actual facts. At this point in time, with the media being so untrustworthy, that point should be obvious to anyone with half-a-brain. And, you still refuse to respond to the issue of the possibility that Diarra may have been in no condition, after being shot twice, to leave the scene. That’s an unknown factor. Until information is cleared up by the police and the D.A.’s office, the only person I believe so far, who is guilty of attempted murder, is the perp who attacked the garage attendant in the first place. The rest of the story is yet to be told in a court of law.