Quote Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces
Let me see if I can explain this a bit: What happened was awful and shouldn't have happened BUT if he hadn't been where he wasn't supposed to be none of it would have happened. People do have some responsibilites for themselves after all.

It's like say there was a drug deal going down across from a bank that was being robbed and one of the drug dealers got caught but was accused of being a bank robber instead of a dealer. If all parties involved had been obeying the law in the first place no one would be in jail.

Have I missed the boat totally?
Not meaning to offend anyone, just my line of thought.
I wouldn't say you are missing the boat (no pun), and I could agree with you, in a general sort of way. But, when one applies the facts to this case, it isn't a 'just' result. For me, if I follow your logic, a person that jaywalks 'deserves' death when he is struck by a vehicle that is speeding.

Sure, the speeder is breaking a law, but, so is the jaywalker, so, he is deserving of the punishment.

For me, the punishment must fit the crime. Here, it didn't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Or, some other biblical reference like that.

I just wouldn't have read the article and thought, "oh well, you deserved something anyhow" or "and just who do you think is paying this person's freight"? What jumped out at a particular reader was more telling than the article, nearly.