Will someone please help me understand this poor attempt at conveying information.
Did I correctly understand that three people invaded a private residence and one of them was killed in the attempt, but the result is called a homicide. It appears to me that what really happened is a case of superb gun control. He hit exactly what he was aiming at. The resident successfully killed one of the invaders. How can this be a homicide?
The right to bear arms has once again enabled a citizen to protect his life and property. Our founding fathers knew exactly what their intentions were. Once more we have undisputed proof. A thug is dead and a law abiding citizen is safe in his home. Score: Resident 1, Criminals O.
Homicide is not a crime. It’s just a factual term for the killing of one human by another. Murder and manslaughter are crimes, as is NEGLIGENT homicide, but in the last case the real crime is negligence while the homicide is just the unintentional result of the criminal negligence.
In these heah pahts, when someone dahs durin a robbery, no matter if’n it’s the victim or one of the perpettes raiders, the offendin parties are charged with the killin.
-cough cough- Sorry.
The homeowner is credited with one shot to the ten ring, with the bonus that the perps will be charged with murder during commission of a felony.
And yes, our local news bureaus are staffed with idiots.
If you look up the definition it will make sense.
If I were the DA and this state had the Felony
Murder law, we could charge the other two with murder.
How do you figure superb gun control? He had one hit and two "failure to engage."