what part of 'off duty' and 'retired' is not understood
i am sooo confused...
why these 'off-duty' and 'retired' individuals felt the need to interceed in something that was so innocuous and for all intents and purposes finished.
an off-duty, 51 yo veteran fed agent whose field of expertise is 'teaching' explosive ordinance, decides he is going subdue a younger BG and gets into a good olde wrestling match w/the perp...
also wonder how many brews the deli gentleman were enjoying...(interesting to note...'they went and got their firearms!!) and they decide to draw down on two men wrestling in the pharmacy...
finally, (nobody sees a problem with this aspect of the story) why is the honorable state rep being interviewed for this news story let alone being so actively involved at all??? what is his agenda in this...
bottom line, it would appear bad judgement was exercised resulting in the death of a individual and the perp got the death penalty for something that might have been minimal jail time, if caught, depending on his previous record. two individuals need to live with the fact they took two lives over some replaceable, money and drugs.
this was a tragic event for all concerned.
wabbit
PS: final thought...i personally, nor should you, do not give a rat's arse about the victim's occupation or who their employer is but rather learn from the story and be a live and knowledgeable witness. i also truly wonder if the state rep would be involved over 'john q public' getting shot?? I also do not feel it would have made it to the news editor's desk in the first place!!
PPS: can anybody tell me if the 'retired' whatever be charged w/manslaughter since they took someones life and not associated w/an agency?