Reply #171: That's a pretty unfair interpretation of law in America

[jobycom]

First, it's not murder until a jury rules that it's murder. Second, it hasn't been proven to be premeditated. The man may not have intended to kill him, but in a rage pulled the trigger anyway. That's often second degree murder, or sometimes even manslaughter. Hell, Jayson Williams just got sentenced for "aggravated assault" for shooting his limo driver point blank in the chest with a shotgun.

Third, the law always considers the details before making a decision. Killing someone doesn't have to be murder. Sometimes it's not even a crime, as in self defense or a justifiable accident. Sometimes it's a lesser charge, based on what motivated the killing. The law isn't perfect, but it isn't that callous as to immediately convict someone of murder without a trial and without knowing all the details. It does not allow vigilantism, but it does take into account things like emotional state, mental wellness, past history of crime or violence, extreme duress, and any other factor. It could be that when we know the whole story the man seems more of a monster, or maybe we'll learn something else.

Either way, the law waits, at least ideally, until it has the full case before making a decision as to whether it's murder or something else.