MuadDib

Murder is murder. While there is a place for mercy in times of extreme mental anguish there is no place for vigilantism in civil society. He should face respective charges for the different situations based on the different scenerios from manslaughter all the way up to murder 1.

Interestingly, I think this question is phrased towards punishing this man because of the vigilante aspect of it being solely in our hands. I want to know how everyone here would vote as a member of a jury under each circumstance.

For my part:
A) guilty of murder
b) guily of motor vehicle homocide
c) guilty of murder/robbery
d) guily of murder 2 possibly manslaughter because of the reaction to extreme news and drunken nature of the crime
e) guilty of murder 2 but with extenuating circumstance because of very severe emotional trauma from 9/11 and the brash nature of the crime. Counseling and reduced sentence.

What I think is very important here is that in judging the crime or the pardon is that in law you shouldn't take into account who the person is or his/her past that isn't relevent to motive. In some cases his involvement in 9/11 plays in (d & e) where as in the rest it doesn't so should be disregarded.

EDIT: Sorry if this ends up hijacking the thread away from the posters intent, but for me at least this provides a less cut and dry dynamic than simply pardoning the crime.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751