[shelterguy]

He should be charged with murder. He LEFT to get a gun, meaning he was under no imminent threat. He could have called the cops and waited outside.

[vikingd00d]

>>He should be charged with murder. He LEFT to get a gun, meaning he was under no imminent threat. He could have called the cops and waited outside.

How dare you read the article rather than just react! There’s moral outrage to be had here!

[The_Media_never_lie]

He should be charged with murder. He LEFT to get a gun, meaning he was under no imminent threat. He could have called the cops and waited outside.

Absolutely. No reason to shoot a naked man in the shower.

However, his lawyer could establish a defense that he was attacked by a friendly weapon.

[Louis Foxwell]

It was an empty house where no one lived. Slight overreaction. A call to the police for trespass would have sufficed. Death does not.

[equaviator]

Yes. You’d have to be more blood-thirsty than afraid to do what he did.

[Blueflag]

I agree that he should not have shot the guy. I would not vote for Murder 1 as a jury member, but a lesser charge is justified.

[JudyinCanada]

I agree. He wasn’t defending himself. He was safe and should have called the police.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Absolutely agree. His life was not in danger.

[Obadiah]

Yep, this was murder, possibly in the 2nd degree.

[dangerdoc]

Yep.

He could have left and waited for the cops, reasonable choice.

He could have stayed in the house to protect it without shooting the intruder, another reasonable choice.

Going back with a gun and shooting a man armed with nothing but his swinging cod appears to be an unreasonable choice.