You're rehashing the same dumbass point I've addressed dozens of times in this thread. You should either address my comments directly, or give up. This is getting very, very pathetic.
Last edited by Aderleth; 09-26-11 at 11:15 AM.
If the guy was already down from being shot, and on his back presumably unconscious, then why shoot another, what, 5 times into his back?
How about 7 more times?
How about 10 more times?
How about 15 more times?
Do you see that if you justify the man being shot 5 more times whil unconscious, you justify any number of shots being pounded into him?
It is good to defend oneself. It is not good to murder someone in a barbarian fashion. This is not a graphic movie. This is not Grand Theft Auto. You don't unload multiple shots into a presumably wounded and unconscious person on his belly.
If it makes you feel any better, we can toss Castle Doctrine to the wind and base the whole debate on natural law.
Last edited by Sig; 09-26-11 at 06:56 PM.
Also, let's explore your reasoning a little bit more. You seem to be conflating a lack of conviction with a lack of illegal action. This is a remarkably stupid thing to do. Just because someone hasn't been convicted of a crime does not mean that they didn't commit a crime. I know you understand this, because you've referred to the victim as a thief, even though, due to his demise, he was never prosecuted for or convicted of any theft crime. So, I've got to ask, why the hypocrisy?