posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:42 AM
I have to add something here. The question seems to be, at what point does the law say you no longer have a right to use deadly force? That's the
key. If he knew that they could no longer come after him, then there would be no further threat to himself or his home, and IF that's the case, then
yes, he's guilty of murder. That means that the prosecution has to prove that he knew they were not armed, and could not take a shot at him, even
though wounded. There, things will probably depend on his statements. If they can get him to admit he felt no further threat, then they have him.
If not, he could walk.
I really don't want to defend his attitude. He did have a right to defend his home, and if they broke in, then they were criminals. It all boils
down to the way the law is written, and how things come out regarding the shooter's state of mind at the time. I don't want to defend someone that
is in the wrong, but I also don't want other homeowners there to lose the right to defend their homes, or to face murder charges, because of one
man's actions. That's my concern here.
I completely understand the feelings about his statements. He's surely sick in the head. The other thing that bugs me, though, is how they are
called "popular students" from the start, as though that is an excuse for criminal behavior.