True. But if he'd been unarmed, they'd still have killed him. They didn't know he was armed at the time they shot him, and he certainly wasn't actively threatening them with physical violence at the time he was shot. According to the article in the OP, they made the decision to shoot anyone trespassing on their property, irrespective of whether or not that person was dangerous. This is not a justifiable action.
Well, Aderleth, I'll tell you something: upon careful reflection, I'm not
entirely displeased at how things turned out. They were not prosecuted for murder, which I agree with... but the quarter-million-plus civil judgement is certainly society saying "you did that WRONG, don't do it that way again!"... and perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
They
did violate the strict letter of the law, as I've acknowleged several times. I still don't consider it murder, because they were reacting to felonious crimes and protecting their property, and the guy that they actually shot WAS, in my opinion, a scumbag criminal well-deserving of the "honor". However... they
did act in a hasty and overly aggressive manner, which can lead to fatal mistakes being made.
In this case they shot the right guy (IMO): a meth-head thief who was indeed trying to burglarize their business. But what if some poor schmuck had been driving past the dealership, needed to pee real bad, and crossed their property line to take a quick whizz? Poor guy might have had his bladder emptied through a new hole, given their hasty and aggressive actions.
IF that had been the
actual outcome, I would support criminal sentences for negligent homicide and large cash awards for wrongful death, because they would have killed an honest man whose only crime was a full bladder and poor choice of bushes.
Of course, that
isn't what happened... and my position has been based on what the
actual outcome was: one felonious scumbag buried, to society's great benefit. I still wouldn't convict them of murder in a million years.
But maybe the civil liability award wasn't really so bad... it certainly sends a message of "hey, dipstick, if there's a NEXT time you might want to do things a little more carefully."
I suppose I'm okay with that.
I still have no sympathy with the dead meth-head, and remain appalled that the family had the gall to sue for "lost wages" for a thief.