At the time I posted, I didn't know it was a robbery: I didn't know what the reason for the killings was at all. In fact, because five people had been shot, I had supposed the man was on a killing spree due to some mental breakdown.

Yes, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, even for gun carriers, but only a fool is completely inflexible in his views and opinions, and there are some occasions where the death penalty is the only appropriate remedy: most of the leaders of the Third Reich, for example. In this instance, I would be reluctant to execute the killer upon conviction, but I don't suppose I would be motivated at all to defend him from such a fate, either.

The point of giving a man a fair trial, even to known criminals, is to prevent abuse of process and to demonstrate publicly that justice has been done. Everyone has the right of a fair trial under the American Constitution, and you can't take that away from a man simply because what he is accused of is particularly distasteful to you. And the point of a jury is to get someone who thinks like me, and someone who thinks like you on the same panel.

Perhaps you can draw comfort from the fact that I am not eligible to serve on your juries.

TYWD