The killer isn't even using the "self defense" line (yet...I'm sure that will change), so what's up with the posts and comments saying she might have been trying to break into his home, or he thought she was? Why are some so desperate to provide a defense for the shooter?
His attorney brought that up, I think. I posted a link upthread, but she basically said that evidence will show that his actions were justified and that he was acting as a reasonable person would if they were in fear for their lives.
The chief detective, however, told reporters that the homeowner told them that the gun had accidentally discharged.
That's what confuses me. I'm not sure if the media misquoted anyone, but on the one hand you say you were in fear for your life so you shot your gun, but then you say you didn't mean to shoot it and that it went off accidentally. Which is it?
I'm not anti-gun whatsoever. I come from a family of police officers and grew up with multiple guns in my home. I firmly do believe you have every right to protect yourself, especially at your home. I live in the city of Chicago, and just heard gunshots outside of my apartment last week, so I fully understand why you would want to protect your home.
However, I just feel like an innocent young girl was shot and killed and it could have been prevented. I think charges should be brought against the man who killed her and a jury should hear all the facts and decide what his punishment should be (if any).
A family lost their daughter, sister, niece, etc., and it shouldn't just be written off as an accident. People should be allowed to protect themselves, but they need to exercise caution. If a police officer fires his gun, he always has to account for why he did it. It should be the same for this man, IMO.
All just MOO, and I agree that it's great that we can have a discussion about this without anyone getting snarky.
