Wow. After this, I'm not sure there is any discussion left to be had. If we take the approach that he was acting in self defense, which at this point there is more evidence to support than to the contrary, how can you justify this statement? "Panicked" seems to be the least fitting description regardless of who's right in this case.
That was all in my IMHO. I base it on actually having to shoot someone and knowing others that have. A telling sign was he shot the first person four times in quick succession. Classic panic situation for a 17 year old.
Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. Just because the world is better off without someone, doesn't mean "who cares" and you know that as well as I do.
I did not put any words in your mouth. If you feel the world is better off without them it is hard to argue you care they got killed. That is the way I look at it.
You can nitpick, but he made clear statements to the police, and confirmed those under oath, and made contradictory statements under oath. You want to say he didn't lie, we can agree to disagree.
I am going with the facts established in the trial. If there was something in the trial that shows he lied on the stand please link to it.
He was illegally carrying a firearm with an expired CCW. Is that criminal? He himself admitted it was under oath. Again, you can attack me personally, but I make it very clear when I'm offering my opinion vs when I'm presenting facts, and even when presenting facts, I state that this is how I see them, and anyone who wishes can disagree.
You should be charged for carry with an expired license. A judge/jury will decide if you committed a criminal offense, not you or I. Remember Kyle is in the same situation.
Lol are you serious? The prosecution literally removed evidence from this case to avoid the defense bringing one of the individuals character into the case. There are several cases documented. One of them was convicted on 2 of 5 (I believe) counts of forcefully sodomizing 9-11 year olds. Nobody is hiding those, and they are public record. I'm going to end all this here, as I don't believe this is constructive any longer, and it's becoming opinion pushing. Watch the trials, look at the evidence, watch the footage from that night, and look at public record. There's a lot of info out there.
Again I am going by the facts in the case. If it is not entered into evidence then it is not part of the case.
Are you saying you didn't here about any of this so called bad stuff from blogs/WA groups?
Now the final thought after probably my longest post ever on DDF.
It is hard to have a constructive discussion with someone when they are only taking one-side. My only option is to post the other side with the hope if the individual is truly objective he will at least consider the other side.
For the record in the the poll I voted "I have no idea".
Poll