Saying non-violent burglars and drug users deserve to die because Joe really wanted an excuse to kill isn’t exactly objective.

The only witness to the killing was a plainclothes officer who said he shot people in the back while fleeing.

Stealing shit isn’t a capital offense. As a society, we decided long ago that even a judge and jury can’t kill someone for burglary. Why is it okay when the psycho neighbor who isn’t even a victim does it?

The shooter told 911 they were coming at him, after basically saying he wanted to go kill them. The police officer who witnessed the killing said they were fleeing and that he shot them in the back.

I’m not some anti-gun dude. I own over 50 guns and used to work in the industry.

But that motherfucker should be in jail. Non-violent criminals don’t deserve the death penalty - least of all from some psycho neighbor who has a hard-on for violence and essentially announces his intent to kill before going outside and killing.

No. It applies to all civil suits regarding gun crime.

It effectively raises the standards of civil suits when guns are involved, which are not supposed to be the same as criminal.

They had been burglarizing the neighbor’s empty house and were leaving.

That isn’t worth killing over.

I’m from the area. It all depends on how white and Republican you are. They stack the Grand Juries with “respectable members” of the community (white, male business owners typically) who no-bill white folk for killing minorities.

In a very public case, a white small business owner/homeowner shot 2 unarmed minorities in the back, killing both as they fled a neighbor’s house. They never stepped on the killer’s property and never threatened anyone. The homeowner called 911 and said he was going to kill them and get away with it. The operator said not to shoot and to go inside because police were just seconds away, and he killed them anyway.

The grand jury refused to let the prosecutor take the case to trial because killing black people is a public benefit in their eyes.

So the families of the victims sued the killer, and the state responded by outlawwing civil suits over any case involving a firearm that didn’t first include a felony conviction.

Fines are criminal. Civil cases are about relief for damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

It’s not as bad as it seems.

They explicitly did not overthrow the ruling, just the civil damages for being too high.

The thing with civil cases is that you generally have to demonstrate damages. Did the state actually incur $500 million dollars in damages? The oddest thing is the Court bringing up the “cruel and unusual punishment” nonsense. That usually comes into play in criminal law.

This is going to be appealed again, and we’ll probably end up with a lower number.

He can’t declare war OR cancel elections.

Won’t stop him from doing both, though.