of course, i see now. Everyone that isnt contributing a huge amount to society should just be shot for any ridiculous reason. i've been so blind. Next time i'm cut off in traffic...watch out! And i know what ill say in court, ill say "well he wasnt contributing to society, he wasnt gonna cure cancer or anything" and then ill be found not guilty because that matters more than the fact that i just took away some guys right to live, which is pretty much the most important right we have.

Did i miss the amazing argument that killed the whole "shot in the back" thing? He is well within his rights to shoot someone so he can protect himself, but how exactly is he protecting himself from a guy with his back turned to him? This sounds more like a pissed off redneck who thinks its ok to just shoot people because they did something wrong as opposed to caring about his right to live and giving him a trial of some kind.