Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
"Judge Douglas Anderson excluded evidence about the teens’ histories from the trial as irrelevant, including court documents that showed Brady had broken into Smith’s house and garage before. Brady and Kifer were also linked to another burglary the day before they were killed; stolen prescription drugs were found in the car they were driving."
This is the part that ticks me off. The fact that they have a criminal history is irrelevant? Really? These two sound a lot like the drug addict little prick who burglarized my house and shop. I took the high road, got a video of him stealing from me, called the police, he went to trial and pled guilty. His sentence was a $200 fine and 10 days in jail - all suspended. ie he got off scott free even though he was on probation in the next county for theft and was the subject of another arrest before that.
I've thought about it a lot since - yes, I've wanted to kill him, but when I think about it, what does that do? He's gone - out of sight and out of pain, while I'm still left to deal with the aftermath. It would have only hurt myself and our families. The most satisfying scenario would have been to meet him with a good strong piece of pipe instead of the video camera. The thought of him spending the rest of his life trying to pick his nuts out of his spleen while remembering the guy who put them there is much more satisfying to me than putting a quick merciful end to his miserable life.
|
I think the reason is that, under the law, whether someone has been a scumbag on other occasions doesn't justify killing them today. Suppose Smith walked up to the two on the street, said "you two broke into my garage once, broke into another garage too, and I think you once had stolen Rx in your car", leveled his shotgun and executed them. No defense there.