| PornoDoggy |
06-15-2003 07:35 PM |
Okay ... if you did a little clicking to do a little reading on the entire STORY, you discover that the burglary victim killed one burglar and wounded the other, who has won the right to sue. The victim was not entitled to own the weapon.
Quote:
Jurors also heard that Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.
|
So, our victim/murderer was originally sentenced to life in prision, later reduced on appeal to five years after pleading, among other things, that he was not responsible for his actions because he
Quote:
suffered from a paranoid personality disorder which diminished his responsibility
|
It also turns out that the two burglars were shot in the back while trying to escape the guy's house after he caught them.
So, as usual, there is more to the story than meets the eye.
That being said, and as liberal as I am, I still don't understand the logic behind allowing the burglar to sue the guy. To make it even more bizarre, the guy who was burglarized will be released from prison on Juy 28th. He was not released earlier because
Quote:
The parole board, however, has continually refused him early release - saying he has shown no remorse and would continue to pose a danger to any other burglars.
|
Uhhh ... even in America burglars aren't entitled to protection under OSHA. In this country, I'm suprised the ACLU and the NRA haven't teamed up to sue the government for discriminiation against the menally ill for depriving them of their precious 2nd Ammendment rights. |
