THIS is why we have the Second Amendment

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I just want to say that, after having read the repartee on Page 2, I now have the vision of a garamet gang-bang burned into my brain. Fuck you all very much.

I read that as being "I can't risk my job saying yes since I'm being recorded."

These are all valid concerns, and.....damn I can't continue. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Anywho, better to be traumatized over this than having her family traumatized over her demise IMO.

She didn't look too happy when I saw her on TV.

It's a lot to lose your husband and then a week later have to kill someone in self defense.

Hopefully she can get through this and not let it eat at her.

I'd seriously doubt she'd have any type of gun.

And if by some chance she did have one in the house she'd have to hope she had enough time to get it out, load it since it has to be unloaded when it's locked up, and use it.

Self defense is a serious business. One of the cautions one of my teachers has made many times is that you need to incorporate into your training the potential consequences of taking action. There are techniques that I've been taught that are flat out godawful. If someone didn't know what could happen they might well be traumatized by the damage they could do to someone, even someone more than deserving of such. That's something that decent people worry about that thugs don't. I think that one problem with TV and movie violence is that it's usually sanitized to the point where people are shocked (traumatized?) when they realize that wounds can be incomprehenisbly gory and the amount of blood is enough to swim in. I'm not suggestion that anyone not use any means necessary and available to defend themselves, but I think knowing what can really happen clears the way for a person to be prepared to deal with the aftermath if they have to let 'er rip.

Yup.

I like it when news like this gets around. I wonder how many other wannabe thugs will hear about it and reconsider an attack on their supposedly weak target.

The more people who refuse to become victims the better. That's why I pretty much support Florida's "Stand your ground" law. It makes things tougher for prosecutors to figure out what to do, but that doesn't bother all that much. I know if I have to defend myself, I'll do it flat out, because I've decided it's me or them and the last thing I need is to worry about whether I'll be prosecuted for it.

Good for her! It just sucks that the accomplice didn't also eat a couple bullets...

Now it looks like they're going to charge the accomplice with his murder.

But seriously, that seems a bit of a stretch. The accomplice ain't the one who pulled the trigger and, at least from what we know so far, was a tag-along, not the prime motivator in the crime.

Yup. Too bad she didn't shoot the accomplice, too. It might have saved us from a test case for "guilt by association" prosecutions.

The guy should be strung up by his balls, but not because they're bootstrapping a murder charge on him.

Actually charging someone involved in a crime that leads to someone else's death, no matter how they died, is quite common if I'm not mistaken. I seem to remember a case where two people robbed someone, and were in a high speed chase. Their car crashed, the driver was killed, and the passenger was charged with his murder.

Extremely common.

Everyone involved in the same crime is responsible for everything that happens during the commission of that crime.

If someone dies then all are guilty of murder. Even if the person who dies is one of the criminals.

There is no test case here.

This is established law going way back in history.

If you're committing a crime you're guilty of everything that happens in the crime the same as your cohorts.

The only time it's not the same is if you are an accessory which is a separate category from accomplice and not applicable in this case since by being present the surviving criminal is an accomplice.

I did not know that. Don't you think that's a little disquieting?

I don't have a problem with it.

Not particularly.

No.

It's not disquieting at all.

Don't want to be charged over the actions of your fellow criminals in the commission of a crime? Then commit your crimes by yourself.

I don't find it disquieting as it's applied in clear cut cases such as these.

Does it concern you that it might be misused?

It can't be misused.

If you're part of the crime when it takes place your guilty for everything that happens during that crime.

Ok. That's the qualifier which answers my question. Thanks

I believe - but the lawyers here are going to have to confirm - that if a death occurs as the result of a crime, all those committing the original crime can be charged with murder since the death was due to the crime.

Saw her again on TV. She had a double barrel shotgun and not a pump action. She could have' got them both.

Saw the two idiots. Typical drug addict hicks.

Of course the family of the dead guy was shocked just shocked that he was doing what he was doing. Why he was just a fucking angel of humanity!!

I saw the fucking awful story that Good Morning America ran the other day (from the OKC ABC affilitate, I'm assuming). Gawd, what an embarrassment of a story. Having the woman "reenact" the incident (without stating that it's a reenactment) in such a cheesy, sensational way. I would say "Unbelievable", but it's completely believable that some fucktards would run something like that. As a colleague said about it on Facebook, the story had no redeeming value at all. The reporter didn't even deliver the script very well.

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I've shot an interview with some scumbag criminal's mom who's crying and saying that her shitbag son "was a good boy! He'd never hurt nobody! "

As one of my coworkers put it a few years ago, "We know what these people are going to say before we ever go interview them! What? Are we out to find that one mother who says 'Hell, my son was a shitbag! He deserved to get shot to death!'"

Nope, hell, the outlaw life is hard, ain't it?