Why does he need to give the intruder a chance, per your comment? Do I have to give them the first shot to make it fair, in your eyes?
= = = = = = = = = =
“We” are getting into a conundrum here.
By not buckling down and outright condemning this person ‘we’ are being accused of being sympathizers with him.
I feel that in this case, the courts are correct. This guy executed two people that broke into his house.
Far to many people are implying that because these were two ‘white’ kids they didn’t deserve to die.
They didn’t deserve to die “IN THIS CASE” because the guy sat in the ‘dark’ waiting for him. Very possibly this guy has been hit MANY times and everyone in the neighborhood thought he was an easy mark.
When I drive, I always look ahead and think of an ‘escape route’ in case someone turns in front of me, stops quickly in front of me or whatever -
I also will say LOUDLY AND OFTEN, if you try to break into my home, or hijack my vehicle - I WILL SHOOT YOU. I WILL SHOOT TO KILL YOU.
Now if you get shot breaking into my house and die, IS/WAS IT PREMEDITATED?
In the broadest sense of the word. YES.
It is like saying a person that randomly killed 5 people shouldn’t use the insanity defense.
Why not? Don’t you think that anyone that randomly shoots 5 people is not wrapped all that tight? Isn’t he crazy?
Aren’t we ‘warned’ to stay alert and be aware of your circumstances?
You should never say that you intend to kill anyone. You shouldn't even say that you shot someone. Here is what you tell the police:
"I discharged my firearm in the direction of the assailant."
No, in fact, that is not true - Montana's Castle Doctrine (which this nationalized case is designed to attack) would give the benefit of the doubt to the defender.