not knowing 'all' the facts of the case, i cannot ultimately say what happened in that grand jury was either right or wrong, but considering those that oversee/navigate it and their creditials to do so, i choose to assume that their choice was the right thing to do. nonetheless, i do share the same concern with 'license carriers' who feel their right to own and shoot within the imaginary lines of the law are as God-given as the right to breath air. those criminals were wrong to do what they were doing, but whether they deserved to die? taken out of context from a modern-day eastwood western, '...deserves got nothing to do with it.' these laws we speak of are merely lines in the sand that we create to live in harmony... some more 'deserving' than others. with a few whips of the pen along with successfully consuming a few rolls of red tape and the laws of today are for the history books. its silly to me to contemplate morality with this one example with the determination to conclude it or justify one way or the other, but it is interesting to note that there is a significant and accepted divide from what is morally and lawfully right.
