[RLM]

The media and sheriff have already convicted and all but hung this guy. Maybe he did it, maybe not, but why is everyone so quick to assume guilt on no more evidence than the word of the sheriff. The gun and bullet relationship was not explained.
Ability and means alone is not a case. If that were true, most of us would be guilty of something. Given this guy had an honorable discharge and no prior record, I think the innocent until proven guilty principal applies.
If the evidence presented in a court of law convicts him, then by all means give him his due. Until then he's presumed innocent.

[Former Military Chick]

While what you say should always be norm, sadly our society has moved from the innocent until proven guilty.

It is as if all cases I can think back on, the media and those who follow the cases have concluded the person guilty.

I suppose some might say, if the prosecutors have enough to charge than he must be guilty and the trial is just formality. I do not support that but it is just how it appears.

He deserves the presumption. But, and this is where I am getting ticked off at the few cases I have read of returning folks from Iraq getting into trouble and than using the excuse of war to justify the actions.

Your comment gave me cause, I will try harder to remain fair.

Thanks so much.

[Drew68]

but why is everyone so quick to assume guilt on no more evidence than the word of the sheriff. The gun and bullet relationship was not explained.

Something is really odd here for the simple fact that people his age just don't go from "no criminal record" to deciding one day to shoot down police helicopters. I might be able to understand if he was drunk (not that it would justify it) but people who commit those types of crimes under the influence typically have a history of alcohol abuse.

Something's not passing the smell test here and/or too much information is being withheld.