Originally Posted by Spider
you cant change the scenario and expect an honest answer ,And Child molesting is a much different crime that raises different emotions and line of thinking then an armed Robbery ...........
But this is my point. Some of the folks in this thread are judging the events based off of what the cashier did after the crime was foiled and the first shot was fired. They are telling us to ignore the prior attempted criminal act, because it doesn't factor into the equation. Here is their argument in a nutshell:
After the first shot to the head, the perp was not a threat to commit any crime or hurt anyone.....therefore the follow-up shots to the chest were murder. The original acts of the perp don't matter in any way.
If these folks are being consistent in their arguments, then it shouldn't matter if the perp was caught in the act of robbery, murder, rape or child molestation. The perp is unarmed, defenseless, and incapable of harming anyone. The "facts of the case" against the cashier don't change.