I remember being taught from a very young age that if you trespass, steal, kill, rob or do anything that breaks the law you could and most likely would be killed by those protecting same. I think that is how it should be and this criminal met his fate. Today we see things through a PC lens and that is what is wrong with this verdict.
I totally understand the harsh feelings.
However, if you’re allowed to do such acts, what’s to stop a person from knocking somebody out, dragging them onto their property amd then shooting them, making the claim that they were on your property with the intent on harming you? If there are no witnesses, how do you prove that wrong?
I think it’s a reasonable position that once you’ve incapacitated somebody, you cannot harm them further, because they ain’t going anywhere and you can tie them up to ensure they don’t go anywhere.
I think it would have been a worse punishment for the kid if he were permanently disabled from the shot to the head.