Maybe there wasn’t justice in Florida. However, Wisconsin is another story.
Last year, an angry old white man decided that the people who had broken into his house had to be the black boys that lived next door, despite the fact that his security cameras showed two different black men who had happened to come from that direction and the fact that the police didn’t have enough evidence to arrest anybody. So he did what seemed right to him. He went and killed the 13 year old boy:
Spooner’s surveillance video provides a clear view of what happened. Spooner emerges from his house and confronts the teen, who is retrieving his family’s garbage cart from the street. Spooner points a gun at Darius, who moves back a few steps. Spooner then exchanges words with Darius’ mother, who’s standing on her porch out of view of the camera, and Spooner briefly points the gun in her direction. Moments later, Spooner points the gun back at the boy standing a couple of feet in front of him. He fires, hitting Darius in the chest.
The teen stumbles and runs away, and Spooner fires a second shot that misses. He appears to attempt a third shot, but the gun jams.
Darius’ mother, Patricia Larry, testified that she chased her son to where he collapsed in the street. She cradled him in her arms as he died.
You are welcome to watch the
snuff film surveillance video here. The angry old white man still considers this “justice,” and admitted on the witness stand that if he had a clear shot, he would have killed the boy’s 18 year old brother too! Finally, when asked how he felt about it, his answer was “Not that bad.”
Seriously? Killed a human being who wasn’t threatening you, wasn’t threatening your family, who might have stolen something from you, and you feel “not that bad” about it? Wow. What a guy.
So the case in court came down to two things: did the angry old white man intend to kill the boy, and was he sane at the time?
I am not an expert in gun safety, but I do know that one of the top gun safety rules out there is “Never point a gun at something you don’t intend to destroy.” Anybody who didn’t grow up in a Warner Brother cartoon knows that if someone is shot in the chest from a few feet away, they will probably die. Therefore I am forced to assume that he meant to “destroy” that kid. So intent? Check!
As for sanity, it really only mattered here for what his final destination was: prison or mental hospital. Most of us don’t want gun-waving angry old men in our neighborhoods. Nevertheless, another one of those gun safety rules? “Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.” By golly, he followed that one! That would tend to support the idea that he was sane at the time. Sanity? Check!
You will not be surprised to find that a jury figured the same thing. Now, he will probably live the rest of his life in prison.
Of course none of this brings that boy back. Thoughts of peace for his family.
In Closing: Just an assortment of NSA, Snowden, spying on Americans, blah blah links (can somebody please explain how this stuff can possibly be legal under the 4th Amendment??); Her Majesty; jobless “recovery“; Antarctica; and oops, somebody accidentally said the truth out loud.