Justice seems backwards in most articles like this, but in this case the good guy won. It's a shame that someone died, but at least the good guy isn't being prosecuted for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
Justice seems backwards in most articles like this, but in this case the good guy won. It's a shame that someone died, but at least the good guy isn't being prosecuted for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html
"Nobody wins," McNally told The Indianapolis Star. "It's a lose-lose situation for everybody. He has family also."
I would disagree and say I wouldn't really care about the "loss" of this perv, sounds like all things considered a suitable outcome.
I agree I will not shed tears over the death of this guy but then again none of us will ever be served well by "vigilante justice". Sooner or later someone innocent will get killed or deprived of due process of law and then we all lose. Could be your relative or mine.
This wasn't vigilante justice. This was a man restraining another man who had broken into the house. Apparently the one who broke in had a heart attack. But even if the father was trying to kill him it would clearly have been self-defense, as the intruder had a weapon.Originally Posted by Dawg85
Now the clown who shot two people in the back AFTER they had left the house they broke into and told the 911 operatore he was going to do it several minutes BEFORE he went and shot them, that was vigilante justice.
Police said Meyers was naked except for a mask and latex gloves and had entered the home through a window near the girl's bedroom with rope, condoms and a knife
...enough said. I'm not sure you could possibly have a more clear cut case here. Plus, the fact that the guy died of an apparent heart attack.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote