It is murder.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that he did rape her daughter and that's she's telling the truth (not an unreasonable assumption, although it is an assumption all the same), then where do we draw the line? Is it okay for me to shoot a man who kills my cat? Robs my home? Mugs my mother? What about shop keepers? Is it alright for them to track down the person who robs their shop and kill them? Or maybe that just calls for a maiming? And how about this guy's son? Okay, if he did what they say he's a creep too, but his dad was still murdered. Would he be right in wanting vengeance for that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by illdeviant
What I don't get is jurors like this...
"If she hadn't reloaded that gun," said Carl Eppolito, a juror from the second trial, "I would have let her walk."
... what nonsense is that?
|
By stopping to reload her revolver, she demonstrated that she was in control. Reloading a weapon is reasonably complex process and requires the weapon's user to be aware of what they're doing. Essentially, by reloading she denied the possibility of it being a crime of passion by proving that she was very much aware of what she was doing. And that's why it's murder.