I’m not sure where you are from, but in parts of the rural south, there is an unwritten two part test that is applied to any killing.
1) Did he need killing?
2) If so, was the person who killed him entitled to do so?
If the DA is foolish enough to bring a charge against someone when the answer to both questions was yes, the jury is probably going to convict.
In this case, the first is clearly a yes, and I’d posit that the second condition was also met.
I hope if I had been there, I would have had the courage to do what was needed. I fear not, but I support the man who did measure up to the task.
...Live in Cain-Tuck, been here two year. Born in Newport, Rhode Island, my father was a Naval officer. You can imagine my family moved around. Mayport, FLA is the southest I lived in the US, but Canal Zone and trampin’ south into South America isn’t pertinent...
...Killing is not the same as murder. To kill is justifiable if in self defense; kill or be murdered. I agree...
...Entitled to kill. In war, yes, rules of engagement. The military are hired killers, might sound harsh, but that’s their job, in war, to kill the enemy. I agree...
...But, acting as he did from rage or emotion for a horrendous act is the question. You, “if I had been there” would have done the same. With courage and no fear. I would have done the same, but, after the fact, the rules may come back against me...
...Granted, this is not a war with “rules”, that’s a joke! This is war to end our civilization, no rules. I support the verdict, and this man, and if we are to end this war for the sake of our nation, don’t have any rules. Wipe them out, that should be our task...