It was two different games with Lewis on the field and off it, especially considering how depleted we are in the secondary. Here's hoping. (And praying. And burning incense.)

Add this one:

**Shae's on Lake Harbour**

NYE Special: $75 for 2 people.
Appetizer, Salads, 2 Entrees, Desserts and a Bottle of Champagne. Live Entertainment! (601) 427-5837.

@JLucas And if you do end up taking a life with that gun, I assume you'd be open to the idea that a thorough investigation should be undertaken to determine whether the homicide you committed was truly justified under the law.

If you opt to "defend" your automobile with deadly force, you need to be held accountable for your actions, even if that accountability means you're ultimately not indicted because you were within your legal rights.

@SpaceMountain80 I agree, that is a very simple point. :)

But note Bhirsh's focus on quote-unquote "their culture" -- that's what presumably made this young man a criminal. Putting aside the straightforward bigotry of his argument ("Just like Trayvon"… "black kid"… "their culture"… blah blah...), the problem here is pretending there's something called "culture" in this country that isn't ALL of our responsibilities.

Clearly people need good parenting, good neighborhoods, good schools, a support system, jobs in their neighborhood, a sense of the possible, etc.

That's what a "culture" is, and if there's a difference between "left" and "right" (labels I dislike, because most people are considerably more nuanced) I'd say it's not just about house arrest or jail time -- it's more broadly about a "right" that feels better blaming and punishing and a "left" that feels better believing it's trying to understand and improve circumstances. (Perhaps to a fault on both sides.)

Too often the "right's" argument seems to be "Aha… you haven't overcome the circumstances of your birth … it's your fault!" whereas the "left's" argument is "Ah… you haven't overcome the circumstance of your birth… that's our problem."

Remember, something doesn't have to be your FAULT to be your problem.

It's noteworthy, BTW, that BHirsh seems to think that "doing something about it" is *shooting people*, while liberals are "caterwauling and whining" about improving schools, more equitable justice systems, more effective support systems, better jobs and creating wealth in the inner city.

@js1976 Just to follow this thought all the way out, one way to avoid a murder/manslaughter arrest (in this hypothetical situation where you could potentially be indicted on a castle doctrine shooting, at least) is to not shoot people dead. If it would help deter possible misuse of this "right" then it might be in the common good.

What does this even mean? This is like random snippets of right-wing talk radio strung together.

How is an entire "culture" a particular parents' responsibility? And, if it is, then what do "lefties" have to do with it? How can you have it both ways? That doesn't even make sense.

(Of course, the alternative read on this would be that you're calling out *left-handed* people, which forces me to wonder what we ever did to you?! :)

Meanwhile, what the hell are *righties* doing about the problem of petty and property crime -- passing laws that says they can shoot on sight? Codifying their fear-based approach to the universe? That'll help.

(Not to mention you people forcing their misshaped scissors and backward PC mouse buttons on the rest of us. Damn you! :)

@tellmesomething Please don't type in all caps in our comments. It's extremely difficult to read. Thanks!

And for the record, while we're defining things, this shooting was a *homicide*.

It may or may not be a *justifiable homicide* -- but it's worth noting that the code section I quoted about that enumerates what we popularly call the "Castle Doctrine" is labelled **SEC. 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide** in Mississippi code.

My contention is simply that all homicides should be thoroughly investigated and that it doesn't really matter what the sheriff thinks or what the police decide they feel like doing on the scene … it's their responsibility -- in conjunction with the D.A. -- to perform a thorough investigation.

And if there's something in the law (...I don't see it…) or something in the way the law in being interpreted that suggests this is a class of homicide that doesn't need to be investigated, then it's my opinion that the law needs to be clarified.

At the very least, perhaps this case can help make that change.

@spacemountain80

"I can only imagine what would happen then. Speaking outside of this particular case - You would have a decent husband or father that was legitimately protecting his family in a home invasion being charged with a felony and forced to go on trial for murder or manslaughter. He spends time in jail (at least until he gets bail, if he is offered that), almost certainly loses his job and income and watches his family suffer while he waits for months to go in front of a jury to prove his innocence. Then, when the jury hears the facts and is found innocent, he and his family are left to put the pieces of their lives back to together. He's already lost a ton - financially, personally - and all because you think he should automatically be put in front of a grand jury. Where is the justice in that idea?"

This would only happen if it got past the DA to a grand jury, and THEN only if the grand jury decided to indict.

Otherwise, the worst someone would have is an arrest on their record, which they could presumably expunge and/or explain. Clearly if the defense put forward by the shooter was the Castle Doctrine, there would be discretion for the cops and DA… but when there's a shooting death, the discretion, in my opinion, needs to happen after a crime scene investigation, not before.

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?

@js1976 Actually, for some of us the point of contention is that there doesn't appear to have been a thorough investigation to determine whether the behavior of the shooter was justified under the law.

If it was justified, then the investigation would show that to, hopefully, the satisfaction of a grand jury.

Here's the law they'd be considering:

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

If it wasn't justified under the law, then it amounts to summary execution of a petty criminal by a civilian, something that any American should find troubling.