This guy was a twice-convicted felon -- and gang member, which means this guy almost certainly has committed dozens more felonies on a routine basis for which we was NOT convicted -- and was illegally carrying a gun in rival gang territory. When approached by police, rather than do something like, oh, say RUN, he starts shooting.
And you are suggesting that this is somehow a problem with the "three strikes" system? This murderous bastard is clearly far too dangerous to be running around free, and has duly earned the life sentence being prepared for him.
Your thinly veiled contention that laws are the problem, rather than violent habitual criminals, is both shocking and morally bankrupt.
You may want to think more clearly about this issue.
Is your knee-jerk over?
The courts are supposed to mete out punishments. Mandatory sentencing laws are wrong-headed and just as bad as courts legislating from the bench.
If judges are not performing properly, use the existing constitutional means to remove them, don't just write more laws.
This jparticular case shows the weakness of the three strikes laws as well as the fallacies of gun laws.
Is it just me? We have a "justice system" where a guy can publicly hose down the scenery in front of a bazillion witnesses, and then plead "not guilty", and be taken seriously. The system is a freaking joke.
We need a "ya did it, dude" exception to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. I don't think it ever crossed the minds of the Founding Fathers that arguing over the obvious was going to be an integral part of the American justice system two centuries later.