"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

On 11/30/12 7:35 AM, Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...


On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:00:48 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

Hey, it's the way I read it. Only saw one write up though and I have
been clear with all of my posts that I am not yet clear but "if it
happened the way I read it". All of you need to read better...


I think is interesting that these good liberal folks have convicted
this guy without a word of testimony, a hearing or a trial, based on a
news story. I think that is what we call a lynch mob isn't it?

No. The news story, in the NY Times and elsewhere, is based on what the
police said, such as the man did not report to the police on the day of
the intrusion and murders because he did not want to disturb the cops'
holiday. Seems to me he has pretty much convicted himself unless the
papers are making it all up.



Fretwell thinks everyone has the right to shoot anyone he or she finds
offensive.


--------------------

No he doesn't and you know you exaggerated. He figures you can protect your
self against a home invasion. Which is what these two did. The guy went
overboard in the shooting department, but he still had a right to shoot
them. And some you may want to execute, so when they get out of jail, or
while awaiting trial his friends decide to make it impossible for you to
testify. Which is a big problem with gang affiliated bandits. Sort of like
the B movie it Charles Bronson. Forget the name. As to home invasion being
dangerous.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...on-4080653.php
Very upscale region. so not inner city crime.