I didn't get through all the posts so please forgive me if I missed someone else making this same point; but whenever stories like this pop up, it seems that some people completely ignore that there's a lot more than the proposed facts that come into play when determining whether a crime was committed or not. It's why we have courts. When there is enough question, we pick somewhat random ordinary citizens from the populace to decide whether or not an action, or series of actions, was just. Of course we're all allowed to have our opinions, this post of mine is a equally just a matter of opinion, but it seems like some of us may need to look past a single article before making a judgment on anyone involved.
Some of the arguments I've read berry picked from the story without even attempting to humanize it. This wasn't a scene from some action flick, this really happened. It involved people who woke up that morning, dusted off their dreams, perhaps had breakfast, thought about the days/years before and the day ahead of them, intentions, etc. And whether some of those intentions were nefarious, none of those involved were probably quite prepared for that exact instant that would decide all of their fate. I doubt that girl woke up saying "I'm planning on dying today", or the man who fired the bullet woke up thinking "I hope that I get the chance to kill a young woman today".
You can imagine their actions scripted to match your opinion, but we don't know from this article whether the thieves were just some naive kids looking for a thrill and the owner was a trigger happy jackass, or if the thieves were extremely dangerous and deranged and hell bent on destroying as much property and life as possible. Did the passenger who supposedly looked like they had a weapon put her hand out the window threateningly, or to show that she had no weapons?
The questions that rise from this article are tremendous, in that if we were the jury and this was the stated case, I hope that none of you would be able to draw an opinion for either side.
The entire case, in my opinion, boils down to this part;
The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.
This is the instant that this moved from grand theft to manslaughter. And who was initiating the manslaughter is what is in question here. It says the vehicle stopped. Did the driver decide at that instant to murder the man with the vehicle? Did he stop out of fear ready to give up? Did the man shoot before or after the vehicle began moving again, and what direction was it moving? He didn't shoot the driver, so maybe none of that matters as we are lead to believe that the passenger appeared to have a weapon. What made him believe she had a weapon? Did she have a weapon? Is it reasonable to think that a "Rambo" senario would lead the shooter to aim at the passenger instead of the driver? Does that bolster his story?
The possible range of scenarios span from comic book simple to mystery novel complicated. I think that the most telling part of this story so far is that the police questioned the man who fired the fatal shots, and after hearing his story, questioning his recollection of the events, probing his wording, observing his attitude and demeanor, decided, at least initially, that he had done the right thing, without even the slightest amount of doubt to temporarily detain him while they worked out some questionable aspects of his account of the events.
