[FirstTomato]

You say no one is to blame when they are murdered?

Some people are very much to blame. That doesn't mean that the murderer is blameless, but not every "victim" is blameless.

If two drug dealers have a gun battle and one is murdered are you saying that the one still standing is the evil one and the other is the victim?

And if two people who hate each other, who have caused undue misery for each other, confront each other and one is killed or near killed and the other still stands, do you automatically condem one and not the other?

[FITZ]

And if two people who hate each other, who have caused undue misery for each other, confront each other and one is killed or near killed and the other still stands, do you automatically condem one and not the other?

Yes because the murder did not need to happen, it certainly did not need to happen in front of those poor kids.

[GretchenEE]

You say no one is to blame when they are murdered?

There are times when homicide is legally justifiable, such as self-defense, manslaughter, and war. There may be others. But from the Bible, which is the source of all just law, those are the only three I know of, and in the Old Testament, when someone killed someone without forethought, and unintentionally, he had to flee to a city of refuge and stay there under the priest's protection till that priest died (whereupon he could return to his own city).

The law teaches us to control ourselves or face the consequences. The chief, trained and paid to uphold the law, was the most despicable example of corruption of the law.

[Shooter 2.5]

And if two people who hate each other, who have caused undue misery for each other, confront each other and one is killed or near killed and the other still stands, do you automatically condem one and not the other?

HELL YES!!!

[Walnut]

In the case of the drug dealers The one dead is the victim and the one who did the shooting is the murderer. If it were the other way around then the case would be reversed.
IN the case of two people confronting each other I would say the person dead is the victim and the one left is the murderer. I realize in these cases the victims are victims because they are slow but they are the victims non the less and the ones doing the killing are the murderers

[ET(end tyranny)]

If two drug dealers have a gun battle and one is murdered are you saying that the one still standing is the evil one and the other is the victim?

And if two people who hate each other, who have caused undue misery for each other, confront each other and one is killed or near killed and the other still stands, do you automatically condem one and not the other?

In your first scenario, you have a gun battle... meaning that both parties have guns. They know what they are getting into. The playing field is equal.

In the second scenario which seems to be referencing the article, the question is, did she have a gun? Doesn't sound like it from the article. He had a gun. Uneven playing field. She is a victim, he is the attempted murder.