09-01-2014, 10:08 AM
I thought as much too, but so many people I talk to seem to think there is course for retribution. Because he wasn't (that we know of) actually armed when the bullets hit him, people are calling it an execution?!
Whether you are armed one split-second from the next you were still 'armed' more than it is legal to be - there is no grey area.
There is course for doubt also - 8:2 say he was not holding the weapon when he was killed.
My theory is that he was shot at whilst symultaneously throwing the gun, hence the doubt from the Jury. Regardless, if he had left the weapon in the taxi he would still be here today.
Whether you are armed one split-second from the next you were still 'armed' more than it is legal to be - there is no grey area.
There is course for doubt also - 8:2 say he was not holding the weapon when he was killed.
My theory is that he was shot at whilst symultaneously throwing the gun, hence the doubt from the Jury. Regardless, if he had left the weapon in the taxi he would still be here today.
Disclaimer: The above is not to be taken to heart and is probably a joke, grow up you big girl.
![[Image: Sig500x130.png]](http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq25/chris_rx71/Sig500x130.png)