A young man is walking through a neighborhood at night. An armed citizen follows him, finds him and then decides to confront him. The confrontation becomes heated and then physical. The young man gains an advantage and the armed citizen fears for his life. So, he kills the young man.
The local prosecutors find the evidence insufficient or too ambiguous to convene a grand jury, but public pressure forces a murder charge. The legal arguments provide a shadow of a doubt involving guilt and the jury follows the letter of the law. The jury decides that the armed citizen is not guilty of the charge of murder given the definition of the law. The armed citizen goes unpunished and the young man remains very dead.
Why does someone have the right to carry a gun and confront another citizen- cause a fight- start to lose the fight- decide to kill the person- and then claim they were in danger? How does this make any sense?
When the system doesn't work it needs to be changed.
By Mike Nally