You talk about not understanding all the facts, then you assume to know them and accuse this man of murder.
I made no such claim, only that he shot her and what the result was.
And you don't know his situation either. It looks like she attempted to rob the wrong man.
Well, as it was pointed out, since you can't sell sex on Craigslist, only your "time", it would seem to muddle your theory that he was "robbed", he got what he paid for (allegedly). So again, she allegedly robbed him (though it would appear as though she provided the services advertised) and he allegedly shot her....The reason I feel qualified in the latter, is that in his defense, I don't believe he denied shooting her in court.
Did you just make this up? I guess it could be, or maybe she was in the process of beaming up to the mother ship and this was his only sure way to get his money back. I admit it's far-fetched but anythings possible, right?
My example is possible within the boundaries of experiences we've all shared, since none of us has ever seen evidence of "mother ships" or "beaming" (in reality), I'd say that my hypotheticals are within the bounds of everyday experience, where your hypotheticals are, ironically, only ever seen in fiction.
Anything
may be possible, but everything that is possible does not have an equal probability of occurring.
Simple solution. Stay off of other's property unless invited. In this case, what flew out the door was this woman's right to steal his money.
Again, what is your evidence that she robbed him?
More fiction I see, chapter 2. Chapter 3.
So you result to deflection because you know these aren't easy questions to answer. Theoretical or not, if you disagree, your job is to prove that the hypotheticals are absurd, otherwise, just keep deflecting.
You assume a lot, don't you? Why assume this man or any other gun owner doesn't have any training, just because you don't.
Where did I say that
he didn't have any training. I said that the
average gun owner isn't expected to have training. Reading is fundamental....
Evidently, she didn't value her freedom enough to understand that robbing people can have bad consequences.
So let me get this straight, he intended (I allege) to break the law by soliciting sex online. Since they didn't agree to it in writing (due to laws that prevent it), they had to work in "code". When she didn't deliver on their unspoken or verbal contract, she exploited the only written "contract" they had (that she agreed to spend "time" with him via a Craigslist ad). This pissed him off (I allege) and he shot her in the neck.
I would say they are both guilty of something to varying degrees, but neither deserves to be bedridden for life for their (alleged) crimes.