A really good point by Todd:

*Think about it this way… if a cop had killed this guy, there would be an investigation and review, yes? Why not at least that same level of prudence in cases like this? Why does that seem like such an egregious wrong to some folks?*

How can we seriously argue that an average citizen -- whom we know little about -- should get more discretion than a police officer to kill a "suspect" with no thorough investigation?

That. Makes. No. Sense.

Space, [here's what you get when you Google][1] "Robert Shuler Smith" and "grand jury" -- evidence that they're common in Hinds County.

[1]: http://www.google.com/search?client=saf…

Space, the grand jury process is common in these parts (including by Robert Smith), and it's a smart way to do it. It makes total sense for the prosecutor to pursue Castle Doctrine deaths and take them to the grand jury. There aren't that many of them, and it's a perfect way to make sure the law is following, that the deceased was doing what was alleged, and that the Castle Doctrine isn't used to hide nefarious stuff.

And if you were the family of someone killed under it, you would want this legal system to be followed properly and not have the police make a quick decision (and you'd sure want to know it wasn't influencing about who knows or is related to whom).

That is the whole point that I was talking about with the reading-comprehension point (which I admit was overly harsh; apologies): This case is more about proper legal/investigative procedures being followed to ensure that the victim was guilty (and there are serious questions to be answered; more soon) and that the execution was justifiable. No one can seriously read the law above and above beyond a shadow of a doubt that it covers what Mr. Williams said he did in this case. That's where a grand jury comes in.

And if gun owners know that their actions will be subject to this kind of legal scrutiny, then maybe they'll fire once or twice to disable rather than six times to kill. Or stay in the house until the police come to protect everyone's lives.

That might not make the bloodthirsty people happy, but it will make our communities safer and our legal system more solid -- and allow fewer opportunities for corruption.

tsmith, that's easy. When others say you're saying things you didn't, they clearly have a problem with reading comprehension (or they're being complete jackasses).

That's not an insult when the evidence is in black and white that they are twisting others' words.

"Liberal semantics," libslayer? Are you serious? The idea of checks and balances on law-enforcement and their decisions has been a conservative principle for this country's entire history.

Y'all are so blinded by bloodlust for alleged "thugs" that you aren't even being consistent within your own obsessions. You simply have no clue what you're trying to reap here. It's much bigger than this case.

And "libslayer," your little obsession with slayering LIBRULs is quaint at best. You really expect to be taken seriously when you play sophomoric games like that?

js, I've covered a lot of stories, some of them involving corruption, including police officers. I am SO not saying any of that came into play here, but what you want would allow a cover-up of bad things so damn easily that it amazes me that an adult would suggest it out loud.

Also, it's fun to see how many of you suddenly think JPD can do no wrong. And feel confident that every single police officer is always on the up and up. That's new.

I actually have no idea if a grand jury would convict Mr. Williams, or if they should. That's the point, js. Is reading comprehension completely beyond your grasp?!?

And those of you who think in such a binary fashion that you think that two crimes cannot co-exist at once, or be committed on someone committing one, amaze me. Seriously? Do you know nothing about American criminal jurisprudence? Good golly.

And if that is the case, js, Mr. Williams has not been proved by law to be a victim. He should be and could be. But without a real investigation, it's impossible to know. Again, the point y'all can't seem to grasp.

It is, however, clear that a suspected petty, unarmed criminal was the victim of six gunshots and died, followed by no real investigation. That one is fact.

Y'all amaze me. You seem unable to imagine the precedent you want to set here--and how it could hurt yourselves and family members. This old-west mentality would be hilarious if not so dangerous for our nation.

Your types have always been there though, and it changes nothing about our need to ensure that laws aren't established that can easily aid future violent criminals and help cover up violent crime.

And of course all killers using Castle Doctrine as an excuse should go to grand jury! There is no other way to know for sure that they're telling the truth! And it's not like there are a ton of them. Yet. Although with this precedent, they may start to flourish among existing criminals. What great cover it would be!

And in cases where someone goes looking for someone not threatening him or his family, and who is unarmed, it is a no-brainer.

In this nation, we don't execute suspected criminals without a trial. That's third-world behavior and will hurt us all.

The problem with that, though, is that no one bothered to prove that Thomas was trying to rob him. That's the point. It may well be true but we can't afford this no-investigation precedent. It should scare all of us.

But it's clear that Thomas was a victim. He's dead.