Is Canal a victim or a murderer?
He's both. There were two crimes committed, one by each person. In the first crime, Canal was a victim. In the second, he's a murderer.
I disagree. There are times and provisions where the legal system allows individuals who find themselves in imminent danger of losing theit life to take measures to ensure their lives are kept safe. I can't begin to imagine the feaar of death that arose when Canal was threatened with his life. If anything, what he did was instinctual, and likely saved lives.
Was this an act of self defense?
Looking at the case by the bsic tenants of the law, no. Abbott was running away according to reports, but whose to say he wouldn't have come back again. People are ssuming Canal should have done the rational thing, which would imply a rational state of mind. How in the hell is someone supposed to be rational when they've just had a knife to their throat and threatened with their life if they didn't turn over their hard earned cash? There's simply no way to look at this situation through objective eyes because most of us have never been there. I can't personally say what Ive had done in the situation simply due to the fact that Im not sure what my state of mind would have been in this case.
Should Canal be convicted or set free?
Convicted, I suppose. I dont advocate vigilante justice in any way, and essentially, thats what we had there.
As for murder, however? No, that's quite the stretch for me to wrap my head around. Id be fine with something along the ilk of voluntary manslaughter, something that carries a short prison sentence.
This is such a double-edged source here. On one hand, Canal broke the letter of the law. We have asinine laws in place that if someone breaks into our home we don't hve the "right" to use deaadly force against them, as I suppose we're to wait them out and see what their actions are. its not until our live is in impending danger that we can act. As if we should be both telepathic to know their next action, and wait until our life is being threatened, which often times can be too late.
Personally, if I was on a jury, and they brought a murder charge of ny kind to the table, Id vote not guilty. Murder doesn;t fit the crime committed here, although there's no doubt there was some crime committed here. It just sure as hell wasn't murder.
What do you think about this case?
Its simply another sad indictment upon our legal system. For a man who just had his life threatened to be told not to act out of a place of likely fear and incredible temporary mental instability(and Im not talking about the "mentally ill robber") is absurd. Still, we dont know state of mind here.
Im not sure how this man should have acted in this case. Its a situation where the disgust I feel for Abbott's brother saying "it shouldn't have turned out this way." Well, he's right. It shouldn't have. Mentally il or not, his brother should never have put himself in a position where he so badly threatened the life of someone else that he lost his own.
There was no mistake made here, the man robbed someone and threatened his life. If he wasn't prepared to lose it, he shouldn't have put himself in a position to do so. In the end, I don't look forward as to how this will play out. A likely conviction for Canal, and a wrongful death suit filed by Abbott's family. Truly messed up. It's truly a situation that hits hardest at the "daamned if you do or don't" idea that we've been forced to look at this case with. To me, the only victim here is Canal, not Abbott or his family. Unfortunately, how do you let Canal off here scotch free without sending a dangerous precedent? Unfortunately, upholding the letter of the law is in direct contrast with true justice here, and which one do you think will win?
