This is a sort of continuation of my last posting, but from a more objective and less personal viewpoint. I posted this elsewhere a little bit ago on the same incident.
________________________________________________________________
In general if you're involved in a situation where there's a body cooling or looking like it might be right soon...STFU is a good rule to follow until your attorney is not only present to do your talking for you. "Name, Rank, Serial#" probably won't get you into trouble, but beyond that it gets perilous as far as I can tell...
This principal often applies elsewhere.
Now, with that said -
1) I think rifle fire is an overenthusiastic response to stereo theft.
2) I think prosecuting someone for manslaughter when they (a) observe theft in progress, (b) firmly suggest the thieve(s) stop, and (c)observe said thief, having been ordered to stop, engage in an apparent "arming motion" is *ALSO* a bit overenthusiastic (even if said shooter utters "I didn't mean to...." subsequently. I say this even in light of our shooter having declined the opportunity to step back.
Right and wrong are not an "on-off" switch most of the time. In this instance, I suggest that while bad choices were made...they were made by all parties, and that the departure from this veil of tears of a car prowler (even if excessive) at the hands of his victim is not worthy of prosecution at a felony level - a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor time-out for over-enthusiasm on the part of the shooter seems a more appropriate charging.
The RCW grows every year...and seldom to the benefit of the public, as redundant and/or unreasonably vague/conflicting laws are added to the books in the name of "it feels good", vote-buying, or "looking busy/tough" - something this situation might cause us to consider. Is the *law* as it currently stands, dysfunctional?
No comments:
Post a Comment