Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to the Kroger shooter?
Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to any gun owner involved in a shooting?
Just because the "victim" was a "kid"? It was a "kid" that shot that Village Pantry worker in the head during a robbery, for example, so I am not that swayed by age alone..
Until we know all the facts, I personally am taking a more neutral stance.
You can sit on the fence if you want. What we discuss here has no bearing on the actual case. It's just opinion Roadie ... and in my and many others' opinions it looks like some a-hole got trigger happy. If I were on a jury I'd be neutral. I'm not.
If you look at this from the kid's family's perspective, seems like the system and many others have already lined up on the side of the "shooter".