View Single Post
Old 1st May 2019, 06:12 PM   #120
Joe Random
Master Poster
Joe Random's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
I still think there has to be intent.

She had to be intending to kill an unarmed man in his home.

It seems pretty clear, that she was intending to protect herself from an intruder.

I don't know what the precedence is. If any. But if a police officer intends to reach for his taser, and instead reaches for his gun, they have been cleared in past instances.

IMO only : she didn't do anywhere near enough to assess the situation before deciding she needed to kill (or protect herself). Back when I took hunter safety and when the NRA was only about how to be safe with firearms, one of the first few things drilled into me was being sure about my target. She didn't in any way do that (at least as has been reported). I hate to make an analogy to a cartoon, but it's almost as if she made a South Parkian pronouncement of "it's coming right for us!" and opened fire.

I'm pro-law enforcement enough that I usually don't comment on that topic here (and so much so that I accept I'll never be allowed to sit on a jury), given the general board leanings on the issue. But even with that acknowledged bias of mine, this case just absolutely stinks to high heaven. Hell, I put more effort into target identification before going 'all guns blazing' when I was a teenager full of testosterone and bullets on his first hunting trip than what a purported law enforcement officer did in the case in question.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top