GTL

@ Bold, that's straight out of the Wizard of Oz. The store owner had no right to kill the kid as he posed no threat at that point. 1st degree murder. Leniency is fine if the courts so decide. As long as they still charge him as he is: a murderer. Justice will be served. Regardless of a persons 'foundation of right or wrong', the law is the law. The store owner killed someone that posed no threat any longer.

I find it totally hypocritical and dumbfounding, how every other extremist group has been demonized to the point where even a skin color or language labels/alienates a person but Christian terrorism continues, on US soil mind you, everyday. THIS IS MADNESS! THIS IS AMURIKAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Survival is inherently part of common sense. Common sense dictates that you do what you have to survive. If you watch the video, you can watch the 'hero' incapacitate the robber by shooting him in the head (he was still alive but unconscious), walk slowly over to the counter, pick up a gun, walk back, and unload 5 bullets. This clearly goes far beyond self-defense, common sense and survival. This steps into the realm of execution-style murder.

Or the KKK? Or the '97 Atlanta Gay and Lesbian club bombing? Or the bombings of Dr. Tiller's facilities, or the fact that he'd already been shot twice? Lowest common denominator: Christian terrorism in the US.

Are you trying to tell me that untrained civilians are incapable of applying common sense? There were many, many ways this could have been handled. 5 bullets to the chest should have been a last resort. The perp was incapacitated, all the owner needed to do was disarm and detain him until police arrived. The perp was in no position to harm the store owner, therefore the owner's actions were not in self-defense.

The boy defense isn't what I was arguing, just using if for effect. My main point was the fact that he was down and out, a phone call would have sufficed over 5 bullets. Yes, once. I've had a knife pulled on me twice. All three times my wallet was stolen. Your point?

These actions are indefensible and wrong of course. They should not have happened, they should not continue to happen. My point was that when put into perspective these are pretty mellow actions.

The kid was still alive when he goes down. He was lying on the floor clearly incapacitated, the store owner proceeds to walk back to the counter of the store slowly and calmly. He then pulls out a gun, walks back to the robber, stands over-top the kid and fires 5 rounds into his abdomen. This is murder beyond self-defense anyway you look at it. The store owner's insurance would have covered any damages to the store. There was no point in killing the 16-yo. I don't want to sound like I'm playing the part of the bleeding-heart, I'm not. This boy was murdered.

As long as their are opposing beliefs on the planet you will see bs like this, it's not really surprising. George Tiller was killed by a man with anti-abortion beliefs. Suicide bombers in Iraq kill for a religious belief. The Cold War was a battle of political belief. Death threats and white powder is bad, but at least they aren't killing people. That doesn't justify their actions, but Californian voters should be thankful these violent gays aren't bombing their businesses or cutting brake lines. Comparatively, gay rights hasn't been nearly so violent as say, Civil Rights.

Went back and unloaded 5 bullets into the chest of a 16-yo. I've seen the video, the youth was completely incapacitated. At that point the store owner should have just called the cops and let the kid be. The fact is that the store owner killed this kid in a manner that goes far, far beyond self-defense.

I don't think government should recognize marriage at all. Drop all 1300 tax benefits, cuts, etc. At that point marriage and civil union, just become words.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

Yes, especially considering more and more people are heading to the polls since the Nov. elections. Racial segregation didn't work, neither with gender segregation.

Sotomayor is basically a shoo-in. ®'s have kicked up a stink about her being a racist, which is pretty ridiculous. The only thing they can come up with is a part of one of her speeches that has been removed and blown totally out of context. The saddest part is that important federal judicial cases are going to have to be put off simply because the Republican's will oppose the appointment of a liberal judge, regardless of the fact she is clearly qualified for the position. Obama is likely to get at least one more Supreme Court nomination during his presidency, most of the next decade is going to be incredibly interesting for gay marriage, abortion and other highly contentious issues.