It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What he describes is bad enough and murder on the literal, text book defined, face of it. It's not even debatable in legal terms. You can't execute people who are wounded, on the ground and absolutely no threat of any kind, to anyone.
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nenothtu
The exact quote from his brother earlier in the thread was:
“He was a security officer for the State Department over the past two decades and was responsible for plans and specifications of State Department buildings worldwide,” Bruce Smith said.
Who else but an expert would be handed that kind of job? I mean even if he was just a glory hound he would understand security enough to not have his place robbed 8 times before this event.
My wife also made the observation that he treated this incident as if he were expecting a "hit". Personally, if I expect that type of visitor, I'm going to want LOTS more options, to afford greater mobility and an ability to flank or fly. that's just me, though. This guys training and expertise seems to have been lacking if he was a security "expert".
Not if the problem was not in fact a security issue. Maybe he wasn't expecting a "hit" but waiting to carry one/two out. Since facts are lacking then anyone's idea is just as valid.
He DID sort of act like he was expecting a hit, but the acting just isn't convincing enough - he allowed himself to get hemmed into a corner, something one should never do under such circumstance.
Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
Innocent until proven guilty.
And how do you know the old man is telling the truth?
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by daskakik
Since when is it a home owner's job to keep people out? Seriously, I don't even lock my door, it's still not my fault if someone comes in without asking. Just because I don't lock my doors and have a fancy security system. People who know me, know not to come in unannounced, someone that knows me not has no business being in my house. Not everyone can afford a fancy alarm system you know. I don't need one, my gun is alarm enough for me.
Maybe the guy did set a trap for them, so what? If they weren't breaking into his house, they wouldn't have stepped into it.
If he was a better shot, and hit them both in the head with one shot, he would be fine by law. I see it as kind of hypocricy that if you can kill with one shot, it's fine, but if you do what he did it's all of a sudden wrong.
Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by MrInquisitive
Now on the topic of this thread: nobody, and I mean nobody (including keyboard judges *ahem*) have the right to call this man a murderer. That is up for a jury of 12 to decide. Not keyboard judges.
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nenothtu
Did you read Advantage's post. You don't need much more than common sense to install or have someone come install a security system. Just having been around a security department would give anyone an idea of what is available.
Originally posted by SymbolicLogic
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
Innocent until proven guilty.
And how do you know the old man is telling the truth?
Originally posted by nenothtu
Of course I did. I read my own as well. What is your point here? Do you not realize that you are making my point for me - that Mr Smith did not have the common sense to qualify as an expert anything? One could take your argument here so far as to indicate that he's never even been around a "security department", much less qualified for expert in one.